Bava Metzia 28a (כח.) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge this:

Rather, consider that which we learned:

a bundle of

notes tied together,

or

that he found

a bundle

a tied packet

of notes—

he must return it

to whoever provides identifying marks. Does

it also make sense that the borrower would be pleased to return it to the lender?

Perhaps the borrower already paid his debt, and by returning the notes to the lender, he will be able to collect the debt through them unlawfully!

Rather, Rava said: Identifying marks are Torah law.

And this is derived

as it is written

in the context of a lost item:

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

The Gemara wonders:

Can it enter your mind that he should give it to him

the finder

before he seeks it out

—that is, before anyone claims the lost item? If no one claims it, how will the finder know to whom to return it?!

Rather,

the Torah says:

“Seek him out,”

the person who has come to claim the lost item,

to determine whether he is a fraud or not!

Is it not

whether he is a fraud or not

through identifying marks

that he makes his claim?

Learn from this

that identifying marks are Torah law.

Rava said: If you should say that identifying marks are Torah law

The Gemara does not let him finish his statement. It questions what Rava meant by

“If you should say,”

as though Rava were uncertain about the matter.

Has it not been established

for him

from the verse “until your brother seeks it out” that

identifying marks are Torah law?

The Gemara explains: Rava’s proof is not conclusive,

because it can be said as we answered —

the verse’s statement that he should seek out whether the claimant is a fraud may refer to inquiry through witnesses. The Gemara now returns to Rava’s statement: If you should say that identifying marks are Torah law a. If one person came and gave

identifying marks

for the lost item,

and

another person came and also gave

identifying marks—

the finder shall leave it

in his possession until Elijah comes .

b. But if one person came and gave the lost item

identifying marks, and

another came and brought

witnesses

that the lost item belonged to him —

it is given to the owner with witnesses.

Although identifying marks are Torah law, witnesses are nevertheless superior . c. If one person gave the lost item

identifying marks, and

another person came and also gave it

identifying marks, and

further brought

one witness

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

witness

the

one—

is considered as though he were not present ,

since a matter is established only through two witnesses. Thus, this is equivalent to the case of identifying marks and identifying marks.

And

in such a case, the ruling is that the finder

shall leave it ,

as the Gemara stated above.

d. If a person brought

witnesses regarding the weaving,

witnesses who testify that he wove the garment ,

and

another person brought

witnesses regarding its being lost,

who testify that the garment fell from him—the lost item

shall be given

to

the

person who brought

witnesses regarding its being lost.

Because

we say

that the person who wove the garment

sold it

to someone else,

and from

that person

another individual

who purchased the garment —

it fell.

The garments worn 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 it around the body. Thus, the garment’s width extended vertically along the person, while its length wrapped around and encircled the body.

e. If a person gave as an identifying mark the

measurement of its length

of the garment,

and

another person gave as an identifying mark the

measurement of its width

of the garment,

it shall be given

the lost item

to

the person who gave the

measurement of its length .

The reason is

that the measurement of its width is estimated when its owner is wrapped in it and standing.

That is, it is possible that the garment is not his, but that he estimated its width when he saw the owner of the cloak wrapped in it, since the entire width of the garment is visible and extends vertically along the person.

And

if it were the

measurement of its length—

it cannot be estimated,

for it is impossible to estimate the garment’s length when the wearer is wrapped in it. Therefore, it is a good identifying mark .

f. If a person gave both the

measurement of its length, and

also the

measurement of its width

of the garment,

and

another person gave the

measurement of its combined dimensions

of the garment—that is, he stated the combined measurement of its length and width, but did not know how to state the length and width separately [“combined dimensions” refers to the shape of the Greek letter gamma, which resembles our letter kaf sofit; therefore, length and width together are called “its gamma”]—

it shall be given to

the person who gave the

measurement of its length and width,

since this is a more distinctive mark.

7. If a person gave the length and width of the garment,

and

of the garment,

while

another gave

the measurements of its weight

of the garment—the garment is

given to

the one who gave

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

8. If a bill of divorce is found, and

he,

the husband,

states

the

identifying marks of the bill of divorce,

and says that he indeed wrote the bill of divorce, but ultimately reconsidered and did not give it to her, and did not divorce her;

and

also

she,

the wife,

states

the

identifying marks of the bill of divorce,

and says that her husband divorced her and that the bill of divorce fell from her—

it is given to her

the bill of divorce.

The reason is that the identifying marks provided by the husband are not evidence, since even if the woman’s words are true, the bill of divorce was certainly in his possession before the divorce, and he knows it and can provide an identifying mark for it.

But the identifying mark provided by the woman is certainly evidence that the bill of divorce fell from her. For otherwise, how would she know it?

And we raise a difficulty:

With what,

do they provide identifying marks?

If you say that they provide the length and width

of the bill of divorce, this is not an identifying mark, because

perhaps, while he was holding it,

she saw it [perhaps, when the husband was holding the bill of divorce, the woman saw it and estimated its size]!

perhaps when the husband was holding the bill of divorce, the wife saw it and estimated its size]!

Rather,

the identifying mark is that

there is a hole in it

in the bill of divorce

next to a particular letter.

9. If

he,

the husband,

states

the

identifying marks of the string

with which the bill of divorce is tied,

and

also

she states

the

identifying marks of the string—

it is given to her.

And we raise a difficulty:

With what?

If you say

that they provide identifying marks

by its whiteness and redness [by the color of the string, whether it is white or red],

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

perhaps, while he was holding it,

the husband

she saw it,

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

Rather,

the identifying mark is

the length

of the string.

10.

If

he says

that the bill of divorce had been lying

in a pouch, and

also

she says

that it had been lying

in a pouch—

it is given to him.

What is the reason?

Because she

certainly knew that everything he possessed

her husband

kept in a pouch.

Therefore, it is possible that the woman guessed that he had also placed the bill of divorce in the pouch, like all his other belongings.

The Mishna before us, and the ensuing discussion of the Gemara, concern the matter of the proclamation. As was already mentioned above, the finder must proclaim the lost object so that the person who lost it will know that his lost object has been found. However, the following matters have not yet been clarified:

a. How long, or how many times, must he proclaim it? And what is the law if the finder proclaimed his find and the owner of the lost object did not come—must he continue proclaiming it, and for how long?

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

c. What is the wording of the proclamation, and where is it made?

These subjects, as well as additional matters concerning the proclamation, will be discussed below.

Mishna:

And until when is the finder obligated

the finder

to proclaim

the lost object?

Until the people know of it—his neighbors [until it becomes clear to the proclaimer that his proclamation has come to the attention of his neighbors].

until it becomes clear to the announcer that his announcement has reached the knowledge of his neighbors].

These are the words of Rabbi Meir [the Gemara will explain which neighbors are meant].

the Gemara will explain which neighbors are meant].

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It is not sufficient that his neighbors know, because it is possible that the lost object belonged to a wayfarer who was not from the locality. Therefore, he should proclaim it during

three

the

pilgrimage festivals

following the discovery of the lost object, because at that time pilgrims from all corners of the Land gather in Jerusalem, and it is likely that the owner of the lost object will be among them .

And

if the owner of the lost object did not come to claim it by the final pilgrimage festival, the finder should wait

after the final pilgrimage festival—

seven days,

which is the amount of time

for each person to go

every Jew

home in three

days,

and

see whether he had lost something, and if so—

return for three

days,

and proclaim for one day

that he had lost a lost object , and provide its identifying marks, and then take it.

Gemara:

A tanna

said: What we learned, “Until the people know of it—his neighbors,” means

the neighbors of the lost object.

And we raise a difficulty:

What are ‘the neighbors of the lost object’?

If you say

that the reference is to

the neighbors of the owner of the lost object,

that he must proclaim it until the owner’s neighbors know that the lost object has been found, then if the finder knows who the owner’s neighbors are, it necessarily follows that he also knows who the owner 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]!

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

Rather,

the reference is that he must proclaim it until

the neighbors of the place where the lost object was found

know, since 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 can go home in three, etc.

And we raise a contradiction

from the Mishna in tractate Ta’anit:

On the third of

the month

Marḥeshvan, we begin requesting rain [we begin saying “And give dew and rain” in the prayer].

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

Rabban Gamliel says: On the seventh of it [of the month Marḥeshvan] we begin requesting rain, which is

the month of Marcheshvan] they request rain, which is

fifteen days after the festival [the festival of Sukkot].

the festival of Sukkot].

The reason that one must wait until then is that during the festival people come from all corners of the Land to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage, and the Sages were concerned that rain might fall upon them on their return and disrupt their journey. Therefore, they instituted that the request for rain be delayed for a sufficient time

so that the last

pilgrim

in the Land of Israel will reach

his home beside

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

a distant inhabited area from the Land of Israel].

It is evident from here that for every Jew to reach his home, fifteen days are necessary! Whereas Rabbi Yehuda said in our Mishna that three days are sufficient!

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. Here,

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

to

the days of

the First Temple.

Whereas

here,

what Rabbi Yehuda said, that three days are sufficient, refers

to

the days of

the Second Temple.

And Rav Yosef explains his statement:

In

the days of

the First Temple, the Jewish people were exceedingly numerous [there were very many Jews],

there were very many Israelites], as it is written concerning them:

as it is written concerning them: “Judah and Israel were numerous, like the sand upon 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, the Jewish people were not exceedingly numerous, as it is written concerning them: “The entire assembly together numbered forty-two thousand three hundred sixty,”

and their settled area was not large; their settlement was concentrated in the central part of the Land of Israel—

we do not require all this.

Abaye said to him: But it is written

concerning the days of the Second Temple, when the Jewish people ascended from Babylonia:

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

indicating that although the Jewish people were few, they were nevertheless dispersed throughout all the cities in which they had lived before the exile. If so, some of them were as distant from Jerusalem as they had been in the days of the First Temple!

And since that is so—

the opposite is more reasonable [it is more reasonable to explain it in the reverse manner]:

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

In the days of

the First Temple, the Jewish people were exceedingly numerous,

and their settlement was densely populated,

because

through this

the entire world was connected [everyone formed a group],

there was companionship among everyone], and

and caravans traveling both by day and by night were readily found [caravans traveling both by day and by night were common]—

caravans traveling both during the day and during the night were common]. Therefore,

we do not require all this, and three days are sufficient

for a person to reach the distant places. This is because 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, the Jewish people were not exceedingly numerous, and the entire world was not connected [people were not commonly found traveling together on the road],

people were not commonly found traveling together],

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

we require all this,

fifteen days. This is because 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 Jew reach the Euphrates River.

Rava said: It is no different in

the days of

the First Temple,

when the Jewish people were numerous,

and it is no different in

the days of

the Second Temple,

when they were few. Even if it is possible that not all the Jewish people reached 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 allotted only seven days for the proclamation,

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

infer from it

that

when

[

the finder proclaims

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

a cloak” is what he proclaims.

Since that is the case, the Sages did not need to allot a person additional time to check whether one of his possessions was missing, because a person knows how many garments he has, and as soon as he reaches home he checks whether a garment is missing.

For if it enters your mind

that “I found

a lost object” is what 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 belongings [we would need to add another day for him to examine all his possessions to see whether anything was missing].

we would have to add one more day for him to examine all his possessions to see whether anything was missing].

Rather, infer from it: “I found a cloak” is what he proclaims.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from it

that this is so.

Rava said: You may even say

that

“I found a lost object” is what he proclaims,

and nevertheless they did not add another day to the period of proclamation, because

the Sages did not trouble the finder concerning a lost object

the finder

more than necessary,

requiring him to remain in Jerusalem more than seven days after the festival.

The Sages taught: When the finder proclaims his find during

the

the first pilgrimage festival, he says

: This is

the first pilgrimage festival

during which I am proclaiming the lost object. The reason is so that the person who lost it will not trouble himself to return to Jerusalem specifically for the lost object. Rather, he will come during the second pilgrimage festival, when he is ascending for the pilgrimage in any event, provide its identifying marks, and take it.

And likewise, when he proclaims it during

the second pilgrimage festival, he says

: This is

the second pilgrimage festival

of the proclamation.

But when he proclaims it during

the

the

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

I found a cloak,” and does not mention which festival of the announcement it is. From the fact that he does not mention which festival it is, the listeners will understand that it is the third festival.

And we raise a difficulty:

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 reason he does not mention the pilgrimage festival in his proclamation during the third pilgrimage festival is

so that it will not be confused with the second.

We are concerned that someone might not hear his words properly and mistakenly think that he is saying that this is the second pilgrimage festival, and rely on that and come during the following pilgrimage festival to claim his lost object—and lose it. Therefore, they instituted that he say nothing, so that everyone will understand that this is the final pilgrimage festival of the proclamation.