Bava Metzia 28b — the Talmud in English

And we challenge: If so, on a festival

also on the second

he should not announce the name of the festival, for

it can be confused with the first!

And we say: In this there is not so much concern, for even if he indeed confuses it and thinks that this is the first festival, ultimately

the third festival will come,

and he will then be able to take his lost object.

The Sages taught: At first [at the beginning, this was the main enactment],

Initially, this was the principal enactment],

whoever found a lost object—

he would announce it for three festivals, and after the last festival for seven days, so that [the owner] would go three [days], return three [days], and announce for one day,

as we learned in our Mishna.

After the Temple was destroyed, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days,

and the pilgrimage to Jerusalem ceased,

they enacted

the Sages

that they should announce

the lost objects

in synagogues and in batei-midrash .

And when the swindlers increased [as will be explained below],

as will be explained below],

they enacted that they should inform his neighbors and his acquaintances

of the finder—

and that is sufficient

for this.

What is [the meaning of] “when the swindlers increased”?

For they would say: Lost objects belong to the king [all lost objects that are found belong to the kingdom].

all lost items that are found belong to the monarchy].

Rabbi Ami found a pouch of dinars [he found a vessel full of gold coins].

he found a vessel filled with gold coins].

A certain Roman saw him, who was afraid [one Roman saw him, that he was afraid to take the find out of fear of the government].

one Roman saw him, and he was afraid to take the find, out of fear of the authorities].

He said to him: Go, take it for yourself! For we are not Persians, who say: Lost objects belong to the king.

The Sages taught:

one large stone, which they called

“the Stone of Claiming,”

was in Jerusalem. Whoever had lost

a lost object

turned there. And

also

whoever found a lost object

turned there.

This one,

the finder,

stands and announces

about his find,

and this one,

the one who lost it,

stands and gives identifying marks—

and takes it.

And this is what we learned

in tractate Ta'anit, in the story of Honi the Circle-Maker, when they came and told him that too much rain was falling, he said to them:

Go out and see whether

it has been covered with water

the Stone of Those Who Err.

For this stone is large and lies in a high place in Jerusalem. And if it indeed has been covered with water, there are indeed too many rains, and I shall pray concerning them that they go away.

Mishna:

If

the claimant said

the finder

the

name

of the lost object, but did not state its identifying marks—

he must not give it to him

the finder must not give him the lost object, for this is no proof that it belongs to him.

And if the

claimant is suspected of being a

swindler, even though he stated

the

identifying marks—

he must not give it to him

. As it is stated: “Until your brother inquires of it,”

and we expound from this verse:

until you inquire

and investigate

your brother, whether he is a swindler,

or

whether he is not a swindler .

Gemara:

It was stated: Rav Judah said: When the finder announces his find, he announces, “I found

a lost object,”

and he does not include in his announcement the name of the lost object, whether it is a cloak, or a vessel, or the like. And the owner of the lost object will come and state the lost object and its identifying marks.

And Rav Nahman said: “I found

a

cloak,” he announces.

For the announcer informs them of the name of the lost object he found, and the owner of the lost object will come and give an identifying mark for it.

And now the Gemara explains the reasons of those who disagree:

Rav Judah said: He announces “a lost object.”

Because

if you say

that he

announces “a cloak”—

we are concerned about a swindler,

who heard one of his neighbors lamenting that he had lost a cloak, and this swindler knows the marks of the cloak, since he saw it many times at his neighbor’s, and when he hears the finder announce, “I found a cloak,” he will arise and give its marks—and take it!

Therefore, the finder announces only that he found an unspecified lost object, and then it will not occur to the swindler that this lost object is his neighbor’s cloak.

Rav Nahman said: He announces “a cloak,”

because in this way the one who lost it will be able to identify more easily that this is his lost object. And

as for the swindler—

we are not concerned, for if so, there would be no end to the matter!

For even if the finder announces merely, “I found a lost object,” the swindler can try his luck and say to the finder: If you found a cloak, these and these are its marks [for he knows that his neighbor lost a cloak, and its marks are also known to him].

We learned: If he stated the lost object but did not state its identifying marks—

this person must not give it to him.

Granted, if you say

that he

announces “a lost object,” this teaches us

our Mishna, that

even though he said

that he had lost

a cloak,

which provides some proof that the lost object is his, since the finder did not say what type of lost object he found, nevertheless,

because he did not state

identifying marks—

we do not return it to him,

since this is not sufficient proof .

But if you say

that he

announces “a cloak,”

then it follows that

he said,

the finder, that he found

a cloak, and he said,

the one claiming that the lost object is his, that he had lost

a cloak,

is it

necessary to say

that

because he did not state identifying marks—

we do not return it to him?

After all, there is no proof in his words that the lost object is his!

Rav Safra said: In fact—

he announces “a cloak.”

And our Mishna is speaking of a case where

he said,

the finder, that he found

a cloak, and he said,

the one claiming that it had been lost to him, the

identifying marks

of the lost object.

And what

is meant by what we learned,

“but did not state its identifying marks,”

that he

did not state its distinctive identifying marks,

on the basis of which it is proper to return a lost object, but, for example, he stated the color of the garment .

We learned in our Mishna:

And the swindler, even though he stated its identifying marks—

this person must not give it to him.

The Sages taught: At first, whoever had lost a lost object would give identifying marks—

and take it.

However,

when the swindlers increased, they enacted

the Sages

that they should say to him

who claimed that the lost object was his:

Go

and bring witnesses that you are not a swindler—

and take it

on the basis of identifying marks.

As in this case, for the father of Rav Pappa’s donkey was lost, and they found it [he lost a donkey, and they found it].

he lost a donkey, and they found it].

He came before Rabba bar Rav Huna,

in order to give identifying marks and take his lost object.

He said to him

Rabba bar Rav Huna:

Go, bring witnesses that you are not a swindler—

and take it.

He went

the father of Rav Pappa, and

brought witnesses.

He said to them

Rabba bar Rav Huna, to the witnesses:

Do you know about him that he is a swindler [do you know about him, the father of Rav Pappa, that he is a swindler]?

Do you know of Rav Pappa’s father that he is a swindler]?

The witnesses thought that Rabba was asking them whether they knew about him that he was not a swindler, for the father of Rav Pappa had brought them for this purpose, so that they would testify that he was not a swindler, and this is how he should have asked them. Therefore

they said to him

to Rabba bar Rav Huna:

Yes!

Indeed, we know.

The father of Rav Pappa was astonished, and

said to them

to the witnesses:

Am I a swindler?!

They said to him: We—

were saying that you are not a swindler.

We intended to say that you are not a swindler, but we erred in understanding Rabba’s question.

And now we must discuss the testimony of these men: whether by their latter words they retracted their first testimony, whereas the rule concerning testimony is that “once he has testified, he may no longer testify otherwise,” or perhaps this is not a retraction of testimony, but only an explanation of their first words, and if so, this is not included in “he may no longer testify otherwise.”

Rabba bar Rav Huna said:

This is not considered a retraction of their first testimony , but

it is reasonable

that from the outset as well they intended to testify in his favor, for the father of Rav Pappa himself brought the witnesses, and

a person does not bring liability upon himself [a person does not bring liability upon himself],

but was certain that they would testify in his favor.

The Mishnayot before us discuss the matter of dealing with a lost object.

The Mishna before us discusses the matter of dealing with living creatures, and the Mishna after it discusses dealing with books, garments, and vessels.

It is written in the Torah [Deuteronomy 22:2]: “And if your brother is not near you and you do not know him, then you shall gather it into the midst of your house, and it shall be with you until your brother inquires of it, and you shall return it to him.”

At times, keeping the lost object in the house until the owner arrives entails expenses. For example, if one found living creatures, which must be guarded, fed, and given drink. Likewise, other lost objects need to be dealt with from time to time.

And the following matters are to be discussed:

a. What is the measure of time for which the finder must deal with the lost object?

b. From where will he finance the expenses entailed by this care?

c. Is the finder permitted to sell the lost object and keep its proceeds for the owner?

d. If he is indeed permitted to sell it, what shall become of the proceeds?

Mishna:

If a person found

anything that does

work

and eats,

such as an ox or a donkey, which can work, and the wages of their work can cover the expenses of their food, he shall leave the lost object with him, and

it shall work—

and eat.

And he shall not sell the animal and leave the proceeds with him, even if the owners delayed in claiming it, because a person is pleased with his own animal, for it already recognizes him and has been trained to do his will.

But

if

something that does not

work,

but

only

eats,

such as calves and foals—

it shall be sold ,

and he shall leave the proceeds with him until their owners claim it. For if he leaves it with him and feeds it, and afterward demands from the owners the cost of the food with which he fed their animal, the owners will suffer a loss!

And from where do we learn this law?

As it is stated: “And you shall return it to him,”

and we expound:

See how you should return it to him.

That is, pay attention that the return should be in an appropriate manner, so that you do not spend for the animal’s food an amount equal to half its value, for if so, this will not be a complete return!

What shall become of the proceeds

of the lost object; how shall he deal with them in the meantime, until the owners come?

Rabbi Tarfon says: He may use them

the finder.

Therefore,

since the finder uses them,

if they are lost

the coins—

he is liable for them.

Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use them,

but shall leave them with him.

Therefore, if they are lost—

he is not liable for them.

The reasons for the dispute will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna that one who finds something that works and eats shall let it work and eat.

And we ask: What will be [the law] if even after years the owners do not come,

and

because

forever

the finder is required to care for something that works and eats?

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: Until twelve months he tends to it.

And from then onward, he may sell it.

It was taught likewise: Anything that works and eats, such as a cow and a donkey, he tends to them until twelve months.

From then onward

he does not need to tend to them any further, but

there

he appraises

their value,

and sells them,

and leaves them

[he leaves the money with himself, until the owners of the lost item come].

And even an item that does not work and eat, which we learned in our Mishna that it is to be sold, does not mean that it is to be sold immediately, but only after a certain period of time. And the measure of the time depends upon the degree of trouble involved in tending to it:

Calves and foals,

which do not perform labor because of their youth,

he tends to them for three months.

From then onward, he appraises their value—

and leaves them.

Geese and chickens

male ones, which do not lay eggs, and whose trouble is greater than that of calves and foals,

he tends to them

only

for thirty days.

From then onward, he appraises their value—

and leaves them.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: A hen,

which lays eggs,

is like large livestock,

for it works and eats; therefore he tends to it until twelve months, and from then onward, he appraises its value—and leaves it.

It was taught likewise

[that the law of a hen is like that of large livestock]:

a.

A hen and large livestock—he tends to them for twelve months.

From then onward, he appraises their value—

and leaves them.

b.

Calves and foals—he tends to them for thirty days.

From then onward, he appraises their value—

and leaves them.

c.

Geese and chickens, and

also

anything whose tending is greater than its earnings—he tends to them for three days.

From then onward, he appraises their value—

and leaves them.

And we raise an objection:

It is difficult

with the law of

calves and foals

which we learned in the first beraita, that he tends to them for up to three months,

and

the law of

calves and foals

which we learned in the second beraita, that he tends to them for up to thirty days!

And similarly, the law of

geese and chickens,

which we said in the first beraita that he tends to them for up to thirty days, is difficult—

and

the law of

geese and chickens

in the second beraita, in which we learned that he tends to them for three days!

And we answer:

Calves and foals—

with regard to calves and foals it is not difficult.

Because

that

which we learned, that he tends to them for three months, refers to

a grazing land,

in a pastureland, and at the time when the grasses are growing, when the animals can graze outside, and the expenses of tending them are not great.

And

whereas

that

which we learned, that he tends to them for thirty days, refers to

fattening.

When the pasture is not abundant, and he must fatten it at the manger in the house, whose expenses are great.

Geese and chickens—

with regard to geese and chickens as well, it is not difficult.

That

which we learned, that he tends to them for three days, refers to

large ones

[whose food is extensive].

Whereas

that

which we learned, that he tends to them for thirty days, refers to

small ones

[the small ones].

We learned in our Mishna:

“And that which does not work and eat”—

it is to be sold.

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning the returning of a lost item:

“And you shall return it to him.”

And we expound:

See how you should return it to him. So that he should not feed a calf to calves,

that is, so that he should not reach the point that he lacks one calf because he fed its value to the other calves,

and

likewise, that he should not feed

a foal—

to foals, a goose—

to geese, and a chicken—

to chickens.

We learned in our Mishna:

“What shall be done with the money? Rabbi Tarfon says: He may use it, etc.”