Talmud Shiur 5784 #15

1. These found objects belong to the finder
2. and these ones must be proclaimed [in the lost and found].
3. These found objects belong to the finder:
   1. if a man found scattered fruit,
      1. scattered money,
      2. small sheaves in the public domain,
      3. cakes of figs,
      4. bakers’ loaves,
      5. strings of fish,
      6. pieces of meat,
      7. wool shearings [as they come] from the country of origin,
      8. stalks of flax
      9. and strips of purple wool,
   2. These all belong to the finder,
      1. according to Rabbi Meir.
4. Rabbi Judah says:
   1. “Anything which has in it something unusual, must be proclaimed.
   2. How is this so?
      1. If he found a round cake with a potsherd in it or a loaf with coins in it [he must proclaim them].”
5. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:
   1. “New merchandise need not be proclaimed.”

Strings of fish are among the list of found items that one may keep.

1. Why not let the knot with which the fish are tied serve as a distinguishing mark?
2. It's the fisherman’s knot
   1. with which everyone ties.
3. But why not let the number serve as a distinguishing mark?
4. It's a number of fish that is equal.
5. The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: Is the number a distinguishing mark or is it not a distinguishing mark?
6. Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned it in a baraita:
7. If one found silver vessels, copper vessels, fragments of lead, and any metal vessels, that one shall not return until the owner provides a sign or until they accurately provides its weight.
   1. And from the fact that weight serves as a distinguishing mark,
   2. measure and number also serve as a distinguishing mark.

Cuts of meat are among the list of found items that one may keep.

1. Why not let the weight of the cut serve as a distinguishing mark?
   1. The mishna is referring to a weight that is equal.
2. But why not let the cut of meat itself serve as a distinguishing mark!
   1. It came, for example, either from the neck or from the thigh of the animal?
3. Isn’t it taught in a baraita:
   1. If one found cuts of fish, or a fish that was bitten, he is obligated to proclaim his find,
   2. and if he found barrels of wine, or of oil, or of grain, or of dried figs, or of olives, these belong to him?
4. With what are we dealing here? It is in a case where there is a distinguishing mark in the shape of the cut,
   1. as in that case of Rabba bar Rav Huna who would cut the meat with three corners.
5. The language of the baraita is also precise,
   1. as it is taught juxtaposed to and similar to a fish that was bitten,
      1. ​​​​​​​ Learn from it that it is the shape of the cut that is a distinguishing mark, not the place from where it was cut.
6. The Master said: If one found barrels of wine, or of oil, or of grain, or of dried figs, or of olives, these belong to him.
7. But didn’t we learn in a mishna (25a): With regard to jugs of wine or jugs of oil, if one finds any of these he is obligated to proclaim his finding.
8. Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: The mishna is referring to a case of sealed jugs.
9. One may conclude by inference that the baraita is referring to a case of open barrels,
   1. and if it is referring to a case of open barrels, it is a deliberate loss.
10. Rav Hoshaya says: The baraita is referring to a case where one covers the barrel with the lid but does not seal it.
11. Abaye said: You can even say that both this mishna and that baraita are referring to jugs and barrels that are sealed, and it is not difficult.
    1. Here, in the mishna, it is referring to a case where one found the jugs before the storehouses of wine were opened.
    2. There, in the baraita, it is referring to a case where one found the barrels after the storehouses of wine were opened.
12. This is just as in that case where Rav Ya’akov bar Abba found a barrel of wine after the storehouses were opened.
13. He came before Abaye. Abaye said to him: Go take the barrel for yourself.