011 EM Stones and Walls

MISHNA: If one found lost items in a heap of stone rubble or in an old wall, these belong to him. If one found lost items in a new wall from its midpoint and outward, they belong to him. If he found the items from its midpoint and inward, they belong to the homeowner. If the homeowner would rent the house to others on a regular basis and there was a steady turnover of residents, even if one found lost items inside the house, these belong to him. Since the owner of the lost items cannot be identified based on location, he will certainly despair of recovering his lost items.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one found a lost item in a heap of rubble or in an old wall it belongs to him. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is his due to the fact that when the owner of the heap or wall claims the property, the finder can say to him: They belong to the Amorites, who lived in Eretz Yisrael before it was conquered by the Jews. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Amorites conceal items but Jews do not conceal items? Perhaps it was the homeowner who placed the item in the wall or the heap. The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is necessary only in the specific case

where the item is extremely rusted, indicating that it had been left there for a long time.

§ The mishna teaches: If one found lost items in a new wall from its midpoint and outward, they belong to him. But if he found the items from its midpoint and inward, they belong to the homeowner.

Rav Ashi said: The determination of ownership with regard to a knife found in a wall follows the handle, and the determination of ownership with regard to a money pouch follows the laces at the opening of the pouch. If the handle or laces face inward, they belong to the homeowner. If the handle or laces face outward, they belong to the finder.

The Gemara asks: But if so, what is the applicability of the ruling of the mishna, which teaches: If one found lost items in a new wall from its midpoint and outward, they belong to him, and from its midpoint and inward, they belong to the homeowner? But instead, to determine ownership, let us see if its handle faces inward or if its handle faces outward, or if its straps face inward or if its straps face outward. The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where one found rags or metal strips.

It is taught: If the hollow in the wall was filled with lost items, e.g., coins, the homeowner and the finder divide them. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this only in a case where the hollow in the wall is inclined toward one side of the wall. Lest you say that all the items were initially on the elevated side, and due to the incline they slipped and filled the entire space, the tanna teaches us that the homeowner and the finder divide them.

§ The mishna teaches: If the homeowner would rent the house to others on a regular basis and there was a steady turnover of residents, even if one found lost items inside the house, these belong to him. The Gemara asks: And why do they belong to the finder? Let us follow the last renter and determine that he is the owner of the items.

Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Shekalim 7:2): With regard to money that was found before animal merchants in Jerusalem, it is always assumed to be money of the second tithe, as most of the animals purchased in Jerusalem were bought with second-tithe money. This halakha applies both during a Festival and throughout the year, as people would typically purchase animals for meat with their second-tithe money. If the money was found on the Temple Mount it is considered non-sacred money. This halakha applies even during a Festival, when people would come to Jerusalem with second-tithe money in hand, as it can be assumed that one who entered the Temple Mount had already spent that money and only non-sacred money is left in his possession.

The mishna continues: And if the coins were found elsewhere in Jerusalem, the following distinction applies: If it was found during the rest of the days of the year, it is considered non-sacred money. But if the money was found during the Festival, when many people would come to Jerusalem with their second-tithe money, all money is presumed to be second-tithe money.

And Rav Shemaya bar Ze’eira says in explanation of the mishna: What is the reason that during the rest of the year the money is considered non-sacred, even on the day after the Festival? Since the markets of Jerusalem tend to be cleaned every day, any money left there would already have been found by the street cleaners. Consequently, any money found there must have been left there recently. Apparently, we say that each of the first coins is gone, and these coins are other ones, i.e., they were left there after the conclusion of the Festival. Here too, with regard to lost items found in a rented house, why not say that the items belonging to each of the first renters are gone and these items belong to the last renter?

Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Kappara: The mishna that states that the item belongs to the finder is referring to a case where the homeowner rendered his house an inn [pundak] for three Jews. Since it is unclear to which of them the item belonged, the owner despairs of its recovery.

The Gemara previously (see 24a) raised a dilemma with regard to the halakha stated by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar that a lost item found in a location frequented by the multitudes belongs to the finder. Is the halakha in accordance with his ruling? Moreover, is his ruling specifically with regard to a location with a gentile majority, or is it even applicable in a location with a Jewish majority? Based on the opinion of bar Kappara, the Gemara suggests: Conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a location with a Jewish majority.

The Gemara rejects this conclusion, and presents an alternative explanation of the latter clause of the mishna. Rather, Rav Menashya bar Ya’akov said: The mishna is referring to a case where he rendered his house an inn for three gentiles. According to that explanation, perhaps Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar issued his ruling specifically in a location with a gentile majority.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Even if you say that the owner rendered his house an inn for three Jews, one cannot conclude that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar issued his ruling even in an area with a Jewish majority. What is the reason that the item belongs to the finder? It is because the person from whom the item fell despairs of its recovery. The one who lost the item says: Now, no other person was with me here, only these residents of the inn. I said in their presence several times to return the item to me, and they did not return it to me; and is it likely that now they are going to return it? If their intention was to return the item, they would have already returned it to me, and the fact that they did not yet return it to me indicates that it is their intention to rob me of the item.

And Rav Naḥman follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rav Naḥman says: If one saw a sela coin

that fell from one of two people, he is obligated to return it. What is the reason? The person from whom the sela fell does not despair of recovering it. He says: After all, no other person was with me, only this one who was with me, as he is unaware that the sela was found by a third party. He therefore thinks: I will seize him and say to him: It is you who took it.

In a case where the coin fell from one of three people, the finder is not obligated to return it. What is the reason? The person from whom the sela fell certainly despairs of recovering it. He says: After all, two other people were with me. If I seize this one, he will say: I did not take it. And if I seize that one, he will say: I did not take it. Since he cannot make an definitive claim, he despairs of recovering his coin.

Based on the fact that by Torah law, one must return a lost item to its owner only if it is worth one peruta, Rava said: With regard to that which you said, that in a case where the coin fell from one of three people the finder is not obligated to return it, we said this only in a case where the total value of the lost coin, when divided by three, does not amount to the value of one peruta for each and every one of them; but if it amounts to the value of one peruta for each and every one of them, he is obligated to return it. What is the reason? Say that perhaps they are partners, i.e., they own the coin jointly; consequently, they do not despair, as each assumes that one of the other two found it and is holding it for the three of them.

There are those who say that Rava said: Even if its total value is only two perutot, which is insufficient to provide each of the three partners with one peruta, one is obligated to return it. What is the reason? Say that perhaps they are partners and one relinquishes his share to another. In that case, the remaining two partners each have a one peruta share, rendering the finder liable to return it.

§ And Rava says: In a case where one saw a sela coin that fell from another, if he took the coin in order to steal it, before the despair of the owner, he violates all of the following mitzvot: He is liable due to the prohibition: “You shall not…rob” (Leviticus 19:13); and due to the positive mitzva, stated with regard to found items, of: “You shall return them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1), and due to the prohibition, stated with regard to one who finds an item: “You may not disregard” (Deuteronomy 22:3). And even if he returned it after the despair of the owner, it is merely a gift that he gave him; and the transgression that he performed, he performed, and he remains in violation of these mitzvot.

Rava continues: If he took the coin in order to return it, before the despair of the owner, and then, after the despair of the owner, he intended to steal it; he violates a commandment, due to his failure to fulfill the positive mitzva of: “You shall return them to your brother.” He does not violate the prohibition: “You shall not…rob,” because at the time he took the coin he did not intend to keep it. And he does not violate the prohibition: “You may not disregard,” because he did not disregard the lost item. He took it with the intention of returning it.

If he waited until the owner despaired of recovering the lost item and only then took it, he violates a commandment, but only due to his failure to fulfill the positive mitzva of: “You may not disregard,” as he took no action to return the lost item to its owner.

Rava says: In the case of this person who saw that a dinar coin fell from another into the sand, and then he found it and took it, he is not obligated to return it to its owner. What is the reason? The reason is that the one from whom the money fell despairs of finding it. Even if the finder sees that the owner brought a sifter and is sifting through the sand, ostensibly indicating that he did not despair of finding his coin, perhaps the owner is saying: Just as a coin fell from me in the sand, so too, a coin fell from another person and I will find some item to offset my loss.