Bava Metzia 28a — the Talmud in English

And we object:

But this that we learned: One who found a bundle of

documents [documents bound one to another],

documents tied together],

or

who found

a bundle [a tied bundle]

a tied packet]

of documents—

he shall return it to whoever gives identifying marks, is it also the case that it is agreeable to the debtor to return it to the creditor?

Perhaps the debtor has indeed already paid his debt, and by returning the documents to the creditor, he will be able to collect through them unlawfully

it also the case here that the borrower is pleased for the lender to have them returned to him?

!

Rather, Rava said: Identifying marks are of Torah authority.

And we learn this matter from

as it is written

concerning a lost object:

“And it shall be with you until your brother seeks it.”

And there is room to wonder:

Would it enter your mind that he should give it

the finder

before he seeks it

—if there is no person who claims the lost object, how will the finder know to whom to return it

?! Rather,

this is what the Torah said:

“Seek him out,”

the one who comes to claim the lost object,

whether he is a deceiver or is not a deceiver!

Is it not [does he not seek it]

meaning, is it not the case that]

through identifying marks

to determine whether he is a deceiver or not?

Infer from it

that identifying marks are of Torah authority.

Rava said: If you should conclude that identifying marks are of Torah authority ,

And the Gemara does not allow him to finish his words, and wonders: What is this that Rava said,

“If you should conclude,”

and is Rava uncertain about the matter?

It is established

for him

for Rava from the verse “until your brother seeks it”—that

identifying marks are of Torah authority!

And the Gemara explains: Rava’s proof is not a complete proof,

because one can say as we answered ,

that what is stated in the verse, that he should seek him out to determine whether he is a deceiver, refers to doing so through witnesses. And now the Gemara returns to Rava’s words: If you should conclude that identifying marks are of Torah authority , a. If a person came and gave

identifying marks

for the lost object,

and

another person came and also gave

identifying marks—

he shall leave it

the finder shall keep the lost object in his possession until Elijah comes .

b. But if a person came and gave for the lost object

identifying marks, and

another came and brought

witnesses

that the lost object belonged to him —

it shall be given to the owner of the witnesses.

For despite the fact that identifying marks are of Torah authority, nevertheless witnesses are superior . c. If a person gave for the lost object

identifying marks, and

another person came and also gave for it

identifying marks, and

additionally brought

one witness

who testifies that the lost object belonged to him, we say that the

witness

the

one—

is considered as though he were absent ,

for a matter is established only through two witnesses! Accordingly, this is like the case of identifying marks and identifying marks.

And

in such a case the law is that

he shall leave it ,

as the Gemara said above.

d. If a person brought

witnesses of weaving,

witnesses testifying that he wove the garment ,

and

another person brought

witnesses of the loss,

who testify that the garment fell from him—

it shall be given

the lost object

to

the one who brought

witnesses of the loss.

Because

we say

that the person who wove the garment

sold it [he sold it to another],

sold it to another person],

and from

him

another person

who bought the garment —

it fell.

The garments that they wore in the time of the Gemara were like the talitot in which we wrap ourselves during prayer. They held the garment by the upper part of its long side and wrapped the body with it. Thus, the width of the garment was positioned according to the person’s height, and the length of the garment wrapped around and encircled the body.

e. If a person gave as an identifying mark the

measure of its length

of the garment,

and

another person gave as an identifying mark the

measure of its width

of the garment,

it shall be given

the lost object

to

the one who gave the

measure of its length .

And the reason is

that the measure of its width he estimates when its owner wraps himself in it and stands.

That is, it is possible that the garment is indeed not his, but he estimated the measure of its width when he saw the owner of the talit wrapping himself in it, since the entire width of the garment is visible, as it is according to the person’s height.

And

if it is

the measure of its length—

he cannot estimate it,

for it is impossible to estimate the length of the garment, since the one wearing it is wrapped in it; therefore it is a good identifying mark .

f. If a person gave both the

measure of its length, and

also the

measure of its width

of the garment,

and

another person gave the

measure of its gamav

of the garment—he stated the combined measurement of the length and width, but did not know how to state the measure of the length separately and the width separately [“gamav” means like the shape of the Greek letter “gamma,” which is made like our letter “final kaf”; therefore length and width together are called “gamav”]—

it shall be given to

the one who gave the

measure of its length and its width,

for this is a more distinctive identifying mark.

7. If a person gave

the measure of its length and the measure of its width

of the garment,

and

another gave

the measure of its weights

of the garment—

it shall be given to

the one who gave

the measure of its weights , since this is certainly a more distinctive identifying mark, because it is more difficult to estimate the weight of the garment than its measurements.

8. A get was found, and

he,

the husband,

says

the

identifying marks of the get,

and says that he indeed wrote the get, but in the end reconsidered and did not give it to her, and did not divorce her.

And

also

she,

the woman,

says

the

identifying marks of the get,

and says that her husband divorced her, and the get fell from her—

it shall be given to her

the get.

The reason is that the identifying marks given by the husband are not evidence, for even if the woman’s words are true, certainly the get had been in his possession before the divorce, and he recognizes it and can give an identifying mark for it.

But the identifying mark given by the woman is certainly evidence that the get fell from her. For if not, how does she recognize it?

And we inquire about it:

With what,

with what do they give identifying marks?

If you say, with the measure of its length and its width

of the get, this is not an identifying mark, because

perhaps while he was holding it—

she saw it []

perhaps when the husband was holding the get, the woman saw it and estimated its size]!

Rather,

the identifying mark is that

there is a hole in it

in the get

beside a certain letter .

9. If

he,

the husband,

says

the

identifying marks of the thread

with which the get is tied,

and

also

she says

the

identifying marks of the thread—

it shall be given to her.

And we inquire about it:

With what?

If you say

that they give identifying marks

by its white and its red []

by the color of the thread, whether it is white or red],

and perhaps while he was holding it

the husband—

she saw it

the woman, and therefore she knows the color of the thread?

Rather,

the identifying mark is

the measure of its length

of the thread.

10.

If

he says

that the get had been placed

in a pouch, and

also

she says

that it had been placed

in a pouch—

it shall be given to him.

What is the reason?

Because she

knew for certain that everything he had

her husband

he kept in a pouch.

And if so, it is possible that the woman guessed that he too had placed the get in a pouch, like all his other objects.

The Mishna before us, and the discussion of the Gemara that follows it, deal with the matter of the proclamation. As was already mentioned above, the finder must proclaim the lost object, so that the one who lost it will know that his lost object has been found. However, it has not yet been clarified for us:

a. How much time, or how many times, must he proclaim? And what is the law if the finder proclaimed his find and the owners of the lost object did not come—must he continue to proclaim, and until when?

b. How does he proclaim? Does he proclaim simply, “I found a lost object,” or must he say what object he found?

c. What is the wording of the proclamation, and where do they proclaim?

These matters, and additional matters concerning the proclamation, will be discussed below.

Mishna:

And until when is he required

the finder

to proclaim

the lost object?

Until such time that his neighbors know of him []

until it becomes clear to the proclaimer that his proclamation has reached the awareness of his neighbors].

The words of Rabbi Meir []

and in the Gemara it will be explained which neighbors are intended].

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It is not enough that his neighbors know, for it is possible that the lost object was lost by a traveler who is not one of the local inhabitants; therefore he shall proclaim during

three

the

pilgrimage festivals

following the finding of the lost object, since at that time pilgrims from all the ends of the land gather in Jerusalem, and it is reasonable that the owner of the lost object will also be among them .

And

if the owner of the lost object did not come to claim his lost object until the final pilgrimage festival, the finder shall wait

after the final pilgrimage festival—

seven days,

which is the amount of time

for each person to go

every Israelite

to his home in three

days,

and

see whether he has lost something, and if so—

he shall return for three

days,

and proclaim for one day

that he has lost a lost object , and he shall give its identifying marks—and take it.

Gemara:

A tanna taught:

What we learned, “until his neighbors know of him,” means

the neighbors of the lost object.

And we inquire about it:

What are ‘the neighbors of the lost object’?

If you say

that the intention is

the neighbors of the owner of the lost object,

that he must proclaim until the neighbors of the owner of the lost object know that the lost object has been found, then if the finder knows who the neighbors of the owner of the lost object are, necessarily he also knows who the owner of the lost object himself is

! If he knows him, let him go and return it to him []

if he recognizes him, let him go and return it to him]!

Rather,

the intention is that he must proclaim until

the neighbors of the place in which the lost object was found

know, for it is possible that it belongs to them.

We learned in our Mishna:

“Rabbi Yehuda says, etc.”

and after the final pilgrimage festival, seven days, so that he may go home in three, etc.

And we pose a contradiction

from the Mishna in tractate Ta’anit:

On the third of

the month

Marheshvan they begin requesting rain []

they begin saying “Give dew and rain” in the prayer].

Rabban Gamliel says: On the seventh of it []

the month of Marheshvan] they request rain, which is

fifteen days after the festival []

the festival of Sukkot].

And the reason that they must wait until then is that during the festival people come up from all the ends of the land to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage, and the Sages were concerned that rain would fall upon them on their return and disrupt their journey; therefore they ordained that they wait in requesting rain for sufficient time,

so that the last

of the pilgrims

in the Land of Israel would reach

their homes beside

the Euphrates River []

which is a distant settled region from the Land of Israel].

It is proven from here that in order for every Israelite to reach his home, fifteen days are needed! Whereas Rabbi Yehuda said in our Mishna that three days suffice!

Rav Yosef said: It is not difficult. Here,

what we learned in tractate Ta’anit, that fifteen days are needed, refers

to

the days of

the First Temple.

But

here,

what Rabbi Yehuda said, that three days suffice, refers

to

the days of

the Second Temple.

And Rav Yosef explains his words:

In the days of

the

First Temple, for Israel was exceedingly numerous []

for Israel was very numerous],

as it is written concerning them: “Judah and Israel were numerous like the sand that is by the sea, in abundance,”

and consequently their settled area extended over a very large territory and reached the Euphrates River—

we require all this,

fifteen days.

But

in

the days of

the Second Temple, for Israel was not exceedingly numerous, as it is written concerning them: “The entire assembly together was forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty,”

and their settled area was not large, and their settlement was concentrated in the center of the Land of Israel—

we do not require all this.

Abaye said to him: But it is written

in the days of the Second Temple, when Israel came up from Babylonia:

“And the priests and the Levites, etc., and the singers and the gatekeepers, etc., and all Israel in their cities,”

which indicates that although Israel was few, nevertheless they were scattered throughout all the cities in which they had lived before the exile; and if so, some of them were as far from Jerusalem as in the days of the First Temple!

And since this is so—

the opposite is more reasonable []

it is more reasonable to resolve it in the opposite manner]:

In the days of the

First Temple, for Israel was exceedingly numerous,

and their settlement was dense,

for

through this

the people formed a fellowship []

there was fellowship among everyone],

and caravans were found traveling both by day and by night []

and caravans traveling both by day and by night were common]—

we do not require all this, and three days suffice

for a person to reach the distant places. For a person need not wait for a caravan or for someone to travel with him, since he will certainly find one immediately and easily.

But in the days of

the Second Temple, for Israel was not exceedingly numerous, and there was no fellowship among the people []

people were not commonly found traveling together on the road],

and caravans traveling both by day and by night were not found—

we require all this,

fifteen days. For they had to wait until a caravan departed, and even when a caravan departed, it traveled only by day; only after fifteen days would the last Israelite reach the Euphrates River.

Rava said: It is no different in

the days of

the First Temple,

when Israel was numerous,

and it is no different in

the days of

the Second Temple,

when they were few. Although it is possible that indeed all of Israel did not reach their homes, nevertheless

the Sages did not trouble the finder concerning a lost object

the finder

more than necessary,

and therefore he need not wait more than seven days after the pilgrimage festival.

Ravina said:

From the fact that the Sages gave only seven days for the proclamation,

infer from this

that

when []

when]

the finder proclaims

his find—he mentions the name of the object he found, and “I found

a cloak,” he proclaims.

Since this is so, the Sages did not need to give a person additional time to check whether one of his objects was missing, for a person knows how many garments he has, and immediately upon reaching his home he checks whether a garment is missing.

For if it enters your mind

that “I found

a lost object,” he proclaims,

and he does not mention the name of the object he found,

we would need to add one day for him to inspect his objects []

we would need to add one more day for him to inspect all his objects to see whether anything was missing].

Rather, infer from this: “A cloak” he proclaims.

And we conclude: indeed,

infer from this

so.

Rava said: You may even say

that

“a lost object” he proclaims,

nevertheless they did not add another day for the proclamation, because

the Sages did not trouble the finder concerning a lost object

the finder

more than necessary,

so that he would have to remain in Jerusalem more than seven days after the festival.

The Sages taught: When the finder proclaims his find at the

first pilgrimage festival, he says:

This is the

first pilgrimage festival

on which

I am proclaiming the lost object. And the reason is so that the one who lost it will not trouble himself to return to Jerusalem especially for the lost object. Rather, he will come at the second pilgrimage festival, when he is going up for the pilgrimage in any event, give its identifying marks, and take it.

And likewise, when he proclaims at the

second pilgrimage festival, he says:

This is the

second pilgrimage festival

of the proclamation.

But when he proclaims at the

pilgrimage festival

the

third, he simply says: “I found a cloak,” and he does not mention which pilgrimage festival it is for the proclamation. And from the fact that he does not mention which pilgrimage festival it is, the listeners will understand that it is the third pilgrimage festival.

And we inquire about it:

And why

does he not mention the pilgrimage festival

?

Let him say

explicitly: This is the

third pilgrimage festival

of the proclamation?

And the Gemara explains: The fact that he does not mention the pilgrimage festival in his proclamation at the third pilgrimage festival is

so that it will not be confused with the second.

For we are concerned that there may be a person who does not hear his words properly and will think that he is saying that this is the second pilgrimage festival, and will rely on this and come at the following pilgrimage festival to take his lost object—and lose it. Therefore, they ordained that he say nothing, so that everyone will understand that this is the final pilgrimage festival for the proclamation.