Bava Metzia 28b (כח:) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge this: If so, on a Festival

too

he should not announce the name of the Festival, for

it may be mistaken for the first Festival!

And we say: In this case there is not such great concern, for even if he does mistake it and think that this is the first Festival, ultimately

the third Festival will arrive,

and he will then be able to reclaim his lost item.

The Sages taught: At first

Initially, this was the principal enactment],

anyone who found a lost item—

would announce it for three Festivals, and after the last Festival, for seven days, so that the owner could go for three days, return for three days, and announce it 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,

the Sages enacted

that

lost items should be announced

about lost property

in synagogues and in houses of study .

And when the swindlers increased [

as will be explained below],

they enacted that they should notify the finder’s neighbors and acquaintances

—

and that is sufficient

in this regard.

What is the meaning of: When the swindlers increased?

Because they would say: Lost property belongs to the king [

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

Rabbi Ami found a container of dinars [

he found a vessel filled with gold coins].

A certain Roman saw him, as he was afraid [

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

He said to him: Go and take it for yourself! We are not Persians, who say: Lost property belongs to the king.

The Sages taught:

There was one large stone, which they called

the “Stone of Claiming”

in Jerusalem. Anyone whose lost item

was lost—

would turn there. And

also

anyone who found a lost item—

would turn there.

This one,

the finder,

stands and announces

his find,

and that one,

the one who lost it,

stands and provides identifying marks—

and takes it.

And this is what we learned

in tractate Ta’anit, concerning the incident involving Honi HaMe’aggel, when people 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 has been covered.

For this stone was large and situated in a high place in Jerusalem. If it had indeed been covered by water, there were in fact excessive rains, and I would pray that they should cease.

Mishna:

If

the claimant stated

the

name

of

the lost item, but did not state its identifying marks—

the finder should not give it to him,

for this is not proof that it belongs to him.

And if the

claimant is suspected of being a

swindler, even though he stated

its

identifying marks—

he should not give it to him

as it is stated: “Until your brother seeks it out from him,”

and we expound this verse:

until you investigate

and examine

your brother, whether he is a swindler,

or

whether he is not a swindler .

Gemara:

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

a lost item,”

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

And Rav Naḥman said: “I found

a

cloak,” he announces.

For the announcer informs people of the name of the lost item that he found, and the owner of the lost item will come and provide an identifying mark for it.

The Gemara now explains the reasoning of the disputants:

Rav Yehuda said: He announces, “A lost item.”

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. This swindler knows the cloak’s identifying marks, since he saw it many times at his neighbor’s, and when he hears the finder announce: “I found a cloak,” he will get up and provide its identifying marks—and take it!

Therefore, the finder announces only that he found an unspecified lost item. The swindler will then not think that this lost item is his neighbor’s cloak.

Rav Naḥman said: He announces, “A cloak,”

because in this manner the person who lost it can identify more easily that this is his lost item. And

with regard to a swindler—

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

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

We learned in the Mishna: If he stated the name of the lost item but did not state its identifying marks—

this person should not give it to him.

Granted, if you say

that he

announces, “A lost item,” this teaches us

in our Mishna that

even though he stated

that he lost a

cloak,

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

because he did not state

identifying marks—

we do not return it to him,

since this is insufficient evidence .

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 claimant, that his lost item was

a cloak,

is it

necessary to state

that

when he did not state identifying marks—

we do not return it to him?

After all, his words contain no evidence whatsoever that the lost item is his!

Rav Safra said: Actually—

he announces, “A cloak.”

And our Mishna is discussing a case where

he said,

the finder, that he found

a cloak, and he said,

the claimant who asserted that he lost it,

the identifying marks

of the lost item.

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 would be appropriate to return the lost item, but merely stated the color of the garment .

We learned in our Mishna:

“And in the case of a swindler, even though he stated its identifying marks”—

this person should not give it to him.

The Sages taught: At first, anyone whose lost item was lost would provide identifying marks—

and take it.

However,

when the swindlers increased, they enacted

that the Sages

should say to him,

the one claiming that the lost item was his:

Go

and bring witnesses that you are not a swindler—

and take it

on the basis of identifying marks.

As in this incident, when Rav Pappa’s father 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 provide identifying marks and take his lost item.

He said to him,

Rabba bar Rav Huna:

Go, bring witnesses that you are not a swindler—

and take it.

He went

Rav Pappa’s father, and

brought witnesses.

He said to them,

Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the witnesses:

Do you know 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 that he was not a swindler, since that was why Rav Pappa’s father had brought them: to testify that he was not a swindler, and that was how he should have asked them. Therefore,

they said to him

Rabba bar Rav Huna:

Yes!

Indeed, we know.

Rav Pappa’s father was astonished, and

said to them

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; rather, we misunderstood Rabba’s question.

We must now consider the testimony of these witnesses: Did they retract their initial testimony in their latter words? The rule with regard to testimony is that “once he has testified, he may no longer retract and testify otherwise.” Or perhaps this is not a retraction of testimony, but merely an explanation of their initial words, in which case it is not included in the rule that one may not retract and testify otherwise.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said:

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

it is reasonable

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

a person does not bring a liability upon himself [

a person does not bring evidence against himself]; rather, he was certain that they would testify in his favor.

The Mishnayot before us discuss the manner of caring for a lost item.

The Mishna before us discusses the manner of caring for living creatures, while the following Mishna discusses caring for books, garments, and utensils.

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

At times, keeping a lost item in one’s house until its owner comes entails expenses. For example, if one finds living creatures, one must guard them, feed them, and give them water. Likewise, other lost items require care from time to time.

The following matters must be considered:

a. What is the length of time for which the finder must care for the lost item?

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

c. Is the finder permitted to sell the lost item and safeguard the proceeds for the owner?

d. If he is indeed permitted to sell it, what should be done with the proceeds?

Mishna:

If a person found

anything that performs

labor

and eats,

such as an ox or a donkey, which can work, and whose wages can cover the expense of their food, he should leave the lost item in his possession and

have it work—

and eat.

He may not sell the animal and keep the proceeds in his possession, even if the owners have delayed claiming it, because a person is comfortable with his own animal: it already recognizes him and has learned to do his will.

But

if

an item that does not perform

labor,

but

only

eats,

such as calves and foals—

it should be sold , and he should keep the proceeds in his possession until their owners claim them. For if he leaves the animal in his possession and feeds it, and then demands from the owners payment for the food with which he fed their animal, the owners will suffer a loss!

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 can return it to him.

That is, take care that the return be carried out appropriately, so that you do not spend on the animal’s food an amount equal to half its value, since in that case this would not be a complete return!

What should be done with the proceeds

of the lost item? How should he handle them in the interim, until the owners arrive?

Rabbi Tarfon says: He may use them

the finder.

Therefore,

since the finder uses them,

if they are lost

the funds—

he is liable for them.

Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use them,

but must leave them in his possession.

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 an item that works and eats should have it work and eat.

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

And

since

forever

the finder must care for an animal that works and eats?

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: He must tend to it for up to twelve months.

From that point onward, he may sell it.

This was also taught in a beraita: Any animal that works and eats, such as a cow or a donkey, he must tend to for up to twelve months.

From that point onward

he is no longer required to tend to them; rather,

there

he appraises

their value,

and sells them,

and sets them aside

leaving the money in his possession until the owners of the lost property come.

And even an item that does not work and eat, which our Mishna states is to be sold, is not meant to be sold immediately, but only after a certain period of time. The length of that period depends on the amount of effort involved in tending to it:

Calves and foals,

which cannot perform work because they are young,

he must tend to for three months.

From that point onward, he appraises their value—

and sets them aside.

Male geese and chickens,

which do not lay eggs and whose care involves more effort than that of calves and foals,

he must tend to them

only

for thirty days.

From that point onward, he appraises their value—

and sets them aside.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: A hen,

which lays eggs,

is like a large animal,

since it works and eats. Therefore, he must tend to it for up to twelve months, and from that point onward he appraises its value and sets it aside.

This was also taught in a beraita

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

a.

A hen and a large animal: He must tend to them for twelve months.

From that point onward, he appraises their value—

and sets them aside.

b.

Calves and foals: He must tend to them for thirty days.

From that point onward, he appraises their value—

and sets them aside.

c.

Geese and chickens, and

also

any item whose care involves more effort than its earnings: He must tend to them for three days.

From that point onward, he appraises their value—

and sets them aside.

And we raise a difficulty:

It is difficult

the law of

calves and foals

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

and

the law of

calves and foals

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

And likewise, the law of

geese and chickens,

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

and

the law of

geese and chickens

in the second beraita, where we learned that he must tend to them for three days!

And we answer:

Calves and foals—

the contradiction concerning calves and foals is not difficult.

Because

the former

statement that he must tend to them for three months refers to

grazing conditions,

in a grazing area and during the season when the grasses are growing, when the animals can graze outdoors and the cost of tending to them is not great.

But

the

former

statement that he must tend to them for thirty days refers to

animals being fattened in a pen.

There is little grazing, and they must be fattened at the manger in the house, which involves considerable expense.

Geese and chickens—

the contradiction concerning geese and chickens is likewise not difficult.

The former

statement that he must tend to them for three days refers to

the large ones

which consume a great deal of food.

But

the former

statement that he must tend to them for thirty days refers to

the small ones

[the young ones].

We learned in our Mishna:

“And an item that does not work and eat”—

it is sold.

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning the mitzva of returning lost property:

“And you shall return it to him.”

And we interpret this:

“See how you can return it to him.” Do not feed a calf to calves,

that is, do not allow a situation to arise in which one of his calves is lost because you fed the other calves with its value,

and

likewise, do not feed

a foal—

to foals; a goose—

to geese; and a chicken—

to chickens.

We learned in our Mishna:

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