Bava Metzia 28bבבא מציעא כ״ח ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bava Metzia 28b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
28bכ״ח ב

אתיא לאחלופי בראשון הא קא אתי רגל שלישי

because perhaps one who hears him will come to confuse it with the first pilgrimage Festival? The Gemara answers: Confusing the second Festival with the first is not a problem, as in any case, won’t the finder come on the third pilgrimage Festival, thereby giving the owner another opportunity to recover his lost item?

ת"ר בראשונה כל מי שמצא אבידה היה מכריז עליה שלשה רגלים ואחר רגל אחרון שבעת ימים כדי שילך שלשה ויחזור שלשה ויכריז יום אחד משחרב בית המקדש שיבנה במהרה בימינו התקינו שיהו מכריזים בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ומשרבו האנסים התקינו שיהו מודיעין לשכיניו ולמיודעיו ודיו

§ The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who found a lost item would proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, and will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day. But from the time that the Temple was destroyed, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, the Sages instituted that those who find lost items shall proclaim their finds in synagogues and study halls. And from the time that the oppressors proliferated, the Sages instituted an ordinance that one who finds a lost item shall inform his neighbors and acquaintances, and that will suffice for him.

מאי משרבו האנסין דאמרי אבידתא למלכא רבי אמי אשכח אודייא דדינרי חזייה ההוא ברנש דקא מירתת א"ל זיל שקול לנפשך דלאו פרסאי אנן דאמרי אבידתא למלכא

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: From the time that the oppressors proliferated? The Gemara answers: It is from the time that they say: A lost item belongs to the king. The Sages were concerned that any public proclamation would result in confiscation of the lost item. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami found a vessel full of dinars. A certain Roman saw that he was wary and hesitant to take it. The Roman said to him: Go, take it for yourself; as we are not Persians, who say that a lost item belongs to the king.

ת"ר אבן טוען היתה בירושלים כל מי שאבדה לו אבידה נפנה לשם וכל מי שמוצא אבידה נפנה לשם זה עומד ומכריז וזה עומד ונותן סימנין ונוטלה וזו היא ששנינו צאו וראו אם נמחת אבן הטוען:

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was a Claimant’s Stone in Jerusalem, and anyone who lost an item would be directed there and anyone who found a lost item would be directed there. This finder would stand and proclaim his find and that owner would stand and provide its distinguishing marks and take the item. And that is the place about which we learned in a mishna (Ta’anit 19a): Go and see if the Claimant’s Stone has been obscured by the rising water.

מתני׳ אמר את האבידה ולא אמר סימניה לא יתן לו והרמאי אע"פ שאמר סימניה לא יתן לו שנאמר (דברים כב, ב) עד דרוש אחיך אותו עד שתדרוש את אחיך אם רמאי הוא אם אינו רמאי:

MISHNA: If a claimant accurately stated what type of item the lost item that was found by another is, but did not state, i.e., describe, its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give it to him. And in the case of a swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give the lost item to him, as it is stated: “And if your brother be not near you, and you know him not, then you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims [derosh] it [oto], and you shall return it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2). Would it enter your mind that the finder would give it to him before he claims it? How can the finder return it if he does not know the identity of the owner? Rather, the verb derosh is not referring to the claim of the owner; it is referring to the scrutiny performed by the finder. You shall not return the lost item until you scrutinize [shetidrosh] your brother to determine whether he, the claimant, is a swindler or whether he is not a swindler.

גמ׳ אתמר רב יהודה אמר אבידתא מכריז ור"נ אמר גלימא מכריז

GEMARA: It was stated that Rav Yehuda said: One who finds an item proclaims that he found a lost item without specifying its nature. And Rav Naḥman said: He specifies the nature of the item, e.g., he proclaims that he found a cloak.

רב יהודה אמר אבידתא מכריז דאי אמרת גלימא מכריז חיישינן לרמאי

Rav Yehuda said: One who finds an item proclaims that he found a lost item, as if you say that he proclaims that he found a cloak, we are concerned about the possibility that a swindler may attempt to claim the item. Perhaps the swindler learned that another person lost that item, and he will ascertain its distinguishing marks, provide those distinguishing marks, and claim the item.

ר"נ אמר גלימא מכריז לרמאי לא חיישינן דא"כ אין לדבר סוף

Rav Naḥman said: The finder proclaims that he found a cloak, and we are not concerned about the possibility that a swindler may attempt to claim the item, as if so, there is no end to the matter. Even if the finder does not specify the nature of the item, perhaps a swindler would be able to guess its nature.

תנן אמר את האבידה ולא אמר את סימניה ה"ז לא יתן לו אי אמרת בשלמא אבידתא מכריז הא קמ"ל אע"ג דאמר גלימא כי לא אמר סימנין לא מהדרינן ליה אלא אי אמרת גלימא מכריז אמר איהו גלימא ואמר איהו גלימא צריכא למימר כי לא אמר סימנין לא מהדרינן ליה

The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in the mishna: If a claimant accurately states what type of item the lost item that was found by another is, but did not state its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give it to him. Granted, if you say the finder proclaims that he found an unspecified lost item, this mishna teaches us that even though the claimant indeed stated that the lost item is a cloak, as long as he did not state its distinguishing marks, we do not return it to him. But if you say that the finder proclaims that he found a cloak, if the finder stated that he found a cloak and the claimant stated that he lost a cloak, does it need to be said that when he did not state its distinguishing marks, we do not return it to him?

אמר רב ספרא לעולם גלימא מכריז אמר איהו גלימא ואמר איהו סימנין ומאי לא אמר את סימניה לא אמר סימנין מובהקין דידה:

Rav Safra said: Actually, one could say that the finder proclaims that he found a cloak, and the mishna is referring to a case where the finder stated that he found a cloak, and the claimant stated its distinguishing marks. And what is the meaning of the phrase in the mishna: If he did not state its distinguishing marks? It means: If he did not state its clear-cut distinguishing marks but rather stated distinguishing marks that are not exclusive to the item. Therefore, he does not prove his ownership.

והרמאי אע"פ שאמר את סימניה ה"ז לא יתן לו: ת"ר בראשונה כל מי שאבדה לו אבידה היה נותן סימנין ונוטלה משרבו הרמאין התקינו שיהו אומרים לו צא והבא עדים דלאו רמאי את וטול

§ The mishna teaches: And in the case of a swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give the lost item to him. The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who lost an item would provide its distinguishing marks and take it. But when the swindlers proliferated, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the finders will say to him: Go and bring witnesses who can testify that you are not a swindler, and take your item.

כי הא דאבוה דרב פפא אירכס ליה חמרא ואשכחוה אתא לקמיה דרבה בר רב הונא אמר ליה זיל אייתי סהדי דלאו רמאי את וטול אזל אייתי סהדי אמר להו ידעיתון ביה דרמאי הוא אמרו ליה אין אמר להו אנא רמאה אנא אמרו ליה אנן לאו רמאי את קאמרינן אמר רבה בר רב הונא מסתברא לא מייתי איניש חובתא לנפשיה:

The Gemara relates: This is as in that incident involving the father of Rav Pappa, who lost a donkey and others found it. He came before Rabba bar Rav Huna to reclaim his donkey. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the father of Rav Pappa: Go and bring witnesses who can testify that you are not a swindler, and you may take your donkey. The father of Rav Pappa went and brought witnesses. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the witnesses: Do you know about him that he is a swindler? The witnesses said: Yes. Rav Pappa’s father said, incredulously, to the witnesses: I am a swindler? The witnesses said to him: We were saying that you are not a swindler. They had thought the question was if he was not a swindler, and therefore responded in the affirmative. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is reasonable to conclude that the witnesses actually intended to support Rav Pappa’s father, because presumably, a person does not bring condemnation upon himself; Rav Pappa’s father would not have volunteered to provide witnesses who would testify against him.

מתני׳ כל דבר שעושה ואוכל יעשה ויאכל ודבר שאין עושה ואוכל ימכר שנאמר (דברים כב, ב) והשבותו לו ראה היאך תשיבנו לו

MISHNA: If one finds any living being that works and generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats, it shall work and eat while in the finder’s possession. And any living being that does not work but it does eat shall be sold, as it is stated: “Then you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims it, and you shall return it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2), indicating that the finder must see how best to return it to him. Since the owner must repay the finder for his expenditures, if feeding the animal costs more than its value, the finder’s keep-ing the animal in his possession will prevent the owner from recovering it.

מה יהא בדמים ר"ט אומר ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם אבדו חייב באחריותן ר"ע אומר לא ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם אבדו אין חייב באחריותן:

What shall be done with the money received from the sale of the animal? Rabbi Tarfon says: The finder may use it; therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it. Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money; therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it.

גמ׳ ולעולם אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל עד י"ב חדש תניא נמי הכי כל דבר שעושה ואוכל כגון פרה וחמור מטפל בהן עד י"ב חדש מכאן ואילך שם דמיהן ומניחן

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an animal that generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats shall work and eat while in the finder’s possession. The Gemara asks: And must he care for the animal forever? Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: He cares for the animal until twelve months pass. This is also taught in a baraita: If one finds any living being that works and generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats, e.g., a cow or a donkey, he tends to them until twelve months pass. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.

עגלים וסייחין מטפל בהן שלשה חדשים מכאן ואילך שם דמיהן ומניחן אווזין ותרנגולין מטפל בהם שלשים יום מכאן ואילך שם דמיהן ומניחן

If one finds calves and foals, which are young and unfit for labor, he tends to them for three months, as they do not earn their keep. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds geese and roosters, he tends to them for thirty days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תרנגולת כבהמה גסה תניא נמי הכי תרנגולת ובהמה גסה מטפל בהן שנים עשר חודש מכאן ואילך שם דמיהן ומניחן עגלים וסייחין מטפל בהן ל' יום מכאן ואילך שם דמיהן ומניחן אווזין ותרנגולין וכל דבר שטיפולו מרובה משכרו מטפל בהן שלשה ימים מכאן ואילך שם דמיהן ומניחן

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The legal status of a chicken is like that of a large domesticated animal in that the eggs it lays suffice to cover the cost of its food, and therefore the finder keeps it for twelve months. This is also taught in a baraita: If one finds a chicken and a large domesticated animal, he tends to them for twelve months. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds calves and foals, he tends to them for thirty days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds geese and roosters and anything that costs more to tend to than the revenue generated by it, he tends to them for three days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.

קשיא עגלים וסייחין אעגלים וסייחין אווזין ותרנגולין אאווזין ותרנגולין

The Gemara asks: It is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps calves and foals for three months and the ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps calves and foals for thirty days; and there is another contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps geese and roosters for thirty days, and the ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps geese and roosters for three days.

עגלים וסייחין אעגלים וסייחין לא קשיא הא דרעיא והא דפטומא

The Gemara answers: The contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita with regard to calves and foals and the ruling in the second baraita with regard to calves and foals is not difficult. This ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps them for three months is referring to calves and foals that graze in the pasture, and that ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps them for thirty days is referring to calves and foals that need to be fattened and therefore require greater exertion on the part of the one who finds them.

אווזין ותרנגולין אאווזין ותרנגולין נמי לא קשיא הא ברברבי הא בזוטרי:

The contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita with regard to geese and roosters and the ruling in the second baraita with regard to geese and roosters is also not difficult. This ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps them for thirty days is referring to large geese and roosters, which do not require great exertion, and that ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps them for three days is referring to small geese and roosters, which require great exertion.

ושאינו עושה ואוכל: תנו רבנן והשבותו לו ראה היאך תשיבנו לו שלא יאכיל עגל לעגלים וסיח לסייחין אווזא לאווזין ותרנגול לתרנגולין:

The mishna teaches: And any living being that does not work but it does eat shall be sold. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall return it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2), indicating that the finder must see how best to return it to him, meaning that one shall not feed the value of a calf to the lost calves that he is tending, nor the value of a foal to the lost foals that he is tending, nor the value of a goose to the geese that he is tending, nor the value of a rooster to the roosters that he is tending. Were the finder to do so, ultimately, the owner would receive nothing.

מה יהא בדמים רבי טרפון אומר ישתמש וכו': עד כאן לא פליגי

§ The mishna teaches: What shall be done with the money received from the sale of the animal? Rabbi Tarfon says: The finder may use it; therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for its loss. Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money. Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution. The Gemara analyzes the tannaitic dispute: Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree