Talmud Shiur 5784 #14

(1) In a case where one discovers lost items, which found items belong to him, and for which items is one obligated to proclaim his find so that the owner of the lost items can come and reclaim them? These found items belong to him: If one found bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him, as they have no distinguishing marks that would enable their owners to claim them. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one finds any lost item in which there is an alteration, he is obligated to proclaim his find. How so? If he found a round cake of pressed figs with an earthenware shard inside it or a loaf of bread with coins inside it.

1. Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im .
2. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one finds any lost item in which there is an alteration, he is obligated to proclaim his find.
   1. How so? If he found a round cake of pressed figs with an earthenware shard inside it, or a loaf of bread with coins inside it, he must proclaim his find.
3. One may conclude by inference that the first tanna holds that even in that case those items belong to him.
4. The Sages assumed that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come on its own is that of a distinguishing mark, and everyone agrees that one passes by food without picking it up.
5. What is the basis of their dispute? Is it not with regard to the matter of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled that they disagree?
   1. As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that its legal status is not that of a distinguishing mark, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that its legal status is that of a distinguishing mark.
6. Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: If it enters your mind that the first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up, then in the case of loaves of a homeowner that were found in a public area, where the loaves would be trampled and their distinguishing mark destroyed, why does he proclaim his find?
7. Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that everyone holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up.
8. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree.
   1. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark,
   2. and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.
9. And Rabba could have said to you that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one does not pass by food without picking it up.
10. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree.
    1. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark,
    2. and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

1. There are those who say that the Sages assumed that everyone agrees that a distinguishing mark that could come on its own is that of a distinguishing mark, and a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark.
2. Is it not with regard to the matter of whether one passes by food without picking it up that they disagree.
   1. As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that one passes,
   2. and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one does not pass.
3. Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: If it enters your mind that the first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food, then in the case of loaves of a homeowner in a public area, why does he proclaim his find?
4. Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that everyone holds that a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food.
5. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree.
   1. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark,
   2. and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.
6. And Rabba could have said to you that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one does not pass by food without picking it up.
7. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree.
   1. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark,
   2. and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark. §
8. Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that this is the principle of a lost item: Once the owner of a lost item says: Woe is me for the monetary loss, this indicates that he has despaired of its recovery.
9. And Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: The halakha is that if one finds bundles of grain in a public area, those bundles belong to him.
10. If he finds the bundles in a secluded area
    1. in a manner indicating that they had fallen, those bundles belong to him.
    2. If in a manner indicating that they had been placed there, the finder takes them and proclaims his find.
11. And both this ruling and that ruling are in the case of an item in which there is no distinguishing mark.
    1. But in the case of an item on which there is a distinguishing mark,
       1. it is no different if the bundles were found in a public area
       2. and it is no different if the bundles were found in a secluded area;
       3. whether the bundles were found in a manner indicating that they had fallen
       4. or whether they were found in a manner indicating that they had been placed there,
    2. he is obligated to proclaim his find.