Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a

Baba Mezi'a 23a

they are trodden on,¹  while on private grounds [the finder] has to take them up and announce them because there they are not trodden on. Big sheaves, however, whether [they are found] in a public thoroughfare or on private grounds, [the finder] has to take up and announce because, being raised, one does not tread on them. Raba, again, explains it according to his view — by the place — [and the reason why] small sheaves [found] in a public thoroughfare belong to the finder [is] that they are pushed along,²  while on private grounds [the finder] has to announce them because they are not pushed along.³  Big sheaves, however, whether [they are found] in a public thoroughfare or on private grounds, [the finder] has to take up and announce because being many they are not pushed along.

Come and hear: A BAKER'S LOAVES, [etc.] BELONG TO THE FINDER — but 'home-made loaves have to be announced,'⁴  now what is the reason in the case of home-made loaves, obviously that they have an identification mark and one can tell that the bread belongs to this person or that person, and, no matter whether [they are found] in a public thoroughfare or on private grounds, [the finder] has to take them up and announce them. It therefore follows that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is a valid mark, — which is a refutation of Rabbah! — Rabbah will answer you: There⁵  the reason is that one may not pass by eatables.⁶  — But there are heathens?⁷  Heathens [do not pass by eatables because they] are afraid of witchcraft.⁸  But are there not cattle and dogs? — [The Mishnah speaks] of places where cattle and dogs are not frequent.

Are we to maintain that this [difference of opinion between Rabbah and Raba is the same] as [the following difference between] the Tannaim [of our Mishnah]: R. JUDAH SAYS: WHATSOEVER HAS IN IT SOMETHING UNUSUAL MUST BE ANNOUNCED, AS, FOR INSTANCE, IF ONE FINDS A ROUND [OF FIGS] CONTAINING A POTSHERD, OR A LOAF CONTAINING MONEY. This implies that the first Tanna [of the Mishnah] holds that these articles belong to the finder [in spite of their unusual feature].⁹  Now the prevalent opinion was then that all would agree that an identification mark which might have come of itself¹⁰  was a valid mark,¹¹  and that one might pass by eatables.¹²  It must therefore be assumed that [the Tannaim] differ regarding an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on: One holds that it is not a valid mark, and the other holds that it is a valid mark!¹³  — R. Zebid replied in the name of Raba: If you assume that the first Tanna [of the Mishnah] is of the opinion that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid mark, and that one may pass by eatables, why should one have to announce [the finding of] home-made loaves? Therefore R. Zebid said in the name of Raba that all are of the opinion that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is a valid mark,¹⁴  and that one may pass by eatables. but here [in our Mishnah the Tannaim] differ regarding an identification mark which may have, come of itself,¹⁵  the first Tanna being of the opinion that a distinguishing mark which may have come of itself is not a valid mark, and R. Judah being of the opinion that it is a valid mark. Rabbah [on the other hand] will tell you that all agree that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid mark, and that one may not pass by eatables,¹⁶  but that [the Tannaim] differ here regarding a mark which may have come of itself,¹⁷  the first Tanna being of the opinion that it is not a valid mark, and R. Judah being of the opinion that it is a valid mark.

Some have another version:¹⁸  The prevalent opinion was then that all would agree that an identification mark which might have come of itself was a valid mark, while an identification mark which was likely to be trodden on was not a valid mark. It must therefore be assumed that [the Tannaim] differ as to whether one may walk on eatables or not, one holding that it is permitted, and the other holding it is not permitted?¹⁹  — R. Zebid then replied in the name of Raba: If you assume that the first Tanna holds that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid mark, and that one may pass by eatables, why should one have to announce [the finding of] home-made loaves? Therefore R. Zebid said in the name of Raba that all are of the opinion that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is a valid mark, and that one may pass by eatables, but here [in our Mishnah the Tannaim] differ regarding an identification mark which may have come of itself, the first Tanna being of the opinion that an identification mark which may have come of itself is not a valid mark, and R. Judah being of the opinion that it is a valid mark. Rabbah [on the other hand] will tell you that all agree that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid mark, and that one may not pass by eatables, but that [the Tannaim] differ here regarding a mark which may have come of itself, the first Tanna being of the opinion that an identification mark which may have come of itself is not a valid mark, and R. Judah being of the opinion that it is a valid mark.

R. Zebid said in the name of Raba: The general principle in regard to a loss is: If [the loser] has said, 'Woe! I have sustained a monetary loss,' he has given it up.²⁰

R. Zebid also said in the name of Raba: The law is: Small sheaves, [if found] in a public thoroughfare, belong to the finder; [if found] on private grounds they belong to the finder when [discovered in the position of things] dropped [accidentally], but [if found in the position of things] laid down [deliberately, the finder] has to take them up and announce them. Both [rulings] apply only to a [case where the lost] article has no identification mark, but in a [case where the lost] article has an identification mark it has to be announced irrespective of whether [it has been found in the position of things] dropped [accidentally] or whether [it has been found in the position of things] laid down [deliberately].

1. So that the identification mark disappears.
2. They are moved about by the traffic and do not remain in the place where they were dropped.
3. As there is very little traffic in private premises they remain in the same place.
4. V. Mishnah, infra 25a.
5. In the case of the loaves referred to in the Mishnah.
6. Therefore loaves of bread will not be trodden on but will be picked up as soon as they are noticed. Cf. 'Er. 64b.
7. Who are not likely to observe the rule laid down by the Rabbis.
8. They are afraid to tread on eatables in case the eatables are bewitched.
9. The first Tanna (R. Meir in our version of the Mishnah) says distinctly that rounds of figs belong to the finder, and he makes no distinction between those that contain something unusual and those that do not.
10. As a potsherd in a round of figs — which may have got into the round accidentally or may have been put in deliberately.
11. As it is assumed that it was done deliberately, for the purpose of identification.
12. Therefore the first Tanna maintains that the mark is of no consequence, as if trodden on it will disappear.
13. The first Tanna will say that as it is liable to be trodden on and to disappear it is not a valid mark, and R. Judah will say that as long as the mark is there it is valid.
14. This accounts for the need of announcing home-made loaves.
15. Such as money found in home-made loaves.
16. Which explains the ruling of R. Judah in our Mishnah.
17. V. p. 143. n. 7.
18. According to which the difference of opinion between the Rabbis refers to the question whether one may pass by eatables or not.
19. R. Meir would hold that it is permitted and therefore the mark is not valid, while R. Judah would hold the contrary view.
20. And the finder is entitled to keep it.

AND STRINGS OF FISHES. Why [do they belong to the finder]? Should not the knot serve as an identification mark?¹  — [The Mishnah speaks] of a fisherman's knot which is tied so universally.²  But should not the number of [fishes on the string] serve as a distinguishing mark? — [The Mishnah speaks] of a fixed number [of fishes].³  R. Shesheth was asked: Is the number⁴  a distinguishing mark or not? — R. Shesheth answered: You have learned it: If one finds a vessel of silver or copper or tin⁵  of lead or any other kind of metal,⁶  one shall not return it unless [the loser] indicates a mark, or unless he states accurately its weight. And seeing that weight is an identification mark measurement and number are also [to be deemed] identification marks.

AND PIECES OF MEAT, etc. Why [do they belong to the finder]? Should not the weight serve as a distinguishing mark? — [The Mishnah speaks] of a fixed weight.⁷  But should not the piece itself, whether it be of the neck⁸  or of the loin, serve as an identification mark? Has it not been taught: 'If one finds pieces of fish, or a fish which has been bitten into,⁹  one has to announce [the find]; barrels of wine, oil, corn, dried figs, or olives belong to the finder'? — Here we deal with a case where there is an identification mark in the cut.¹⁰  Thus Rabbah son of R. Huna used to cut [pieces of meat] in the shape of a triangle.¹¹  There is also a proof for this:¹²  For he mentions [cut pieces as if they were] like the fish which has been bitten into.¹³  This is conclusive.

The Master said [as quoted above]: 'Barrels of wine, oil, corn, dried figs, or olives belong to the finder.' But have we not learnt: Jars of wine and jars of oil have to be announced?¹⁴  — R. Zera answered in the name of Rab: Our Mishnah deals with sealed [barrels].¹⁵  'It must thus be assumed that the Baraitha deals with open [barrels] — but open barrels constitute a deliberate loss!¹⁶  — R. Hosaia answered: [It deals with] barrels which have been stopped up.¹⁷  Abaye says: You may even say that both [the Mishnah and the Baraitha] deal with sealed [barrels], yet there is no contradiction: Here¹⁸  [the law refers to the time] before the opening of the cellars;¹⁹  there [it refers to the time] after the opening of the cellars.²⁰  Thus R. Jacob b. Abba found a barrel of wine after the opening of the cellars, and when he appeared before Abaye the latter said to him: Go and take it for yourself.²¹

R. Bibi asked of R. Nahman: Is the place [where an article is found] an identification mark or not? — [R. Nahman] answered him: You have learned it: If one finds barrels of wine, or of oil, or of corn, or of dried figs, or of olives, they belong to him. Now if you were to assume that the place [where an article is found] is an identification mark [the finder] ought to announce the place!²²  — R. Zebid answered: Here we deal with [barrels found] on the river-bank.²³  R. Mari said: For what reason did the Rabbis maintain that the river-bank does not constitute an identification mark? Because we say to him:²⁴  As it happened to you, so it may have happened to your neighbour.²⁵  Some have another version: R. Mari said: For what reason did the Rabbis maintain²⁶  that the place constitutes no identification mark? Because we say to him: As it happened to you in this place, so it may have happened to your neighbour in this [same] place.

Once a man found some pitch in a winepress. So he appeared before Rab, and the latter said to him: Go and take if for yourself. When [Rab] saw that he hesitated [to do so] he said to him: Go and share it with my son Hiyya. Shall we then say that Rab is of the opinion that the place [where an article is found] does not constitute an identification mark? — R. Abba answered: It was appropriated because it²⁷  was deemed to have been abandoned by the owners, as it was seen that weeds had grown upon it.²⁸

R. SIMEON B. ELEAZAR SAYS, etc. What is meant by 'anfuria'?²⁹  Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: New vessels which one's eye has not yet sufficiently noted.³⁰  — In what circumstances? If there is on them an identification mark — what does it matter if the eye has not yet sufficiently noted them? If there is no identification mark on them-what does it matter if the eye has sufficiently noted them?³¹  — Admittedly there is no identification mark on them. But the point [as explained by Rab Judah] is important in regard to the question whether the [lost vessels] should be returned to [a claimant who is] a learned man³²  [and who recognises the vessels] by sight:³³  If [it is a case where] the eye has sufficiently noted [the lost vessels] he is sure to know them, and we give them back to him. But [in a case] where the eye has not sufficiently noted them he cannot be sure to know them, and we do not give them back to him. For Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: In the following three matters learned men do conceal the truth: In matters of a tractate,³⁴  bed,³⁵

1. Cf. supra 20b; infra 25b.
2. The kind of knot which fishermen use everywhere and which therefore cannot be regarded as an identification mark.
3. The number of fishes which fishermen usually hang on the same string, so that there is nothing distinctive about it.
4. Var. loc., weight instead of number. [This apparently is the correct reading, as is shown by what follows, unless we omit 'measurement' in the last sentence of this paragraph. There is however also a reading: 'Is the measurement, number and weight etc.?' v. D.S.]
5. [G]
6. [So MS.M., cur. edd.: 'vessels'.]
7. The usual weight of pieces of meat cut by butchers for sale. Cf. p. 145. nn. 3-4.
8. [Or, 'rib'.]
9. This forms an identification mark.
10. The pieces of fish referred to in the quoted Baraitha are distinguishable by reason of the peculiar shape into which they are cut.
11. Which made them distinguishable so that they remained Kasher even when they were lost sight of.
12. The context bears out the correctness of the assumption that the shape of the pieces was peculiar and served as an identification mark.
13. Which is obviously recognisable because of the identification mark.
14. Infra 25a.
15. Barrels which had been opened for the purpose of taking a sample of the wine, and were sealed again by the vendor with his own (distinctive) seal before delivery.
16. Barrels of wine which have been left open become unfit for use (cf. Ter. VIII, 4), and the person who leaves it open knows that he is incurring a loss.
17. But not sealed — so that there is no identification mark, while the wine is fit to be used.
18. In the Mishnah.
19. Before the time when the sale and delivery of the barrels of wine begins, and when the barrels are still generally unsealed. If one vendor then sealed a barrel and sold it the seal constitutes an identification mark.
20. When the sealing of the barrels has become general, and the seal no more constitutes an identification mark.
21. He had a right to keep the found barrel as it was not deemed to have an identification mark.
22. So that the loser could claim the articles by indicating the place where he lost them.
23. The quay where barrels are unloaded from the boats. Such a place cannot be regarded as an identification mark, and the indication of the place would not entitle one to reclaim the lost barrel.
24. To the loser.
25. Other people may have left barrels of wine there by mistake.
26. [Read preferably with some texts, 'What is the reason of the one who maintains, etc.?']
27. Lit., 'they considered the fact that it, etc.'
28. Which showed that the pitch had been there for a long time and had been given up by the owner.
29. [H] merchandise. [It is connected in dictionaries with the [G]]
30. As they have not been sufficiently long in use, and they cannot be properly recognised when seen again.
31. If there is nothing particular about them to distinguish them from other vessels the fact that they have been long in use, and that their shape etc. has been fully noted, should make no difference.
32. Who is not likely to claim goods to which he is not entitled.
33. Cf. supra 19a.
34. If he asked whether he is familiar with a certain tractate of the Talmud he will modestly say 'no' — even though in fact he is familiar with it.
35. This is explained in various ways. According to Rashi it refers to a question which may be put to a scholar regarding the performance of his conjugal duties, and to which he may decline to give a correct answer because of a sense of delicacy.