Talmud Shiur Source Sheet #18

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one finds any anpurya vessels he is not obligated to proclaim his find.

1. What are anpurya vessels?
2. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They are new vessels,
   1. as the eye has not yet sufficiently seen them to be able to recognize them.
3. What are the circumstances?
4. If there is a distinguishing mark on the vessels,
   1. when the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them, what of it?
5. If there is no distinguishing mark on the vessels,
   1. then when the eye has sufficiently seen them, what of it?
6. Actually, it is a vessel in which there is no distinguishing mark,
7. and the practical difference is with regard to returning the vessel to a Torah scholar on the basis of visual recognition.
   1. When the eye of a Torah scholar has sufficiently seen them he is certain about them, and we return a lost item to him on the basis of his description of the vessel.
   2. When the eye of a Torah scholar has not sufficiently seen them, he is not certain about them, and we do not return a lost item to him,
8. as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to these three matters alone, it is normal for Sages to amend their statements and deviate from the truth:
   1. With regard to a tractate, if he is asked whether he studied a particular tractate, he may humbly say that he did not, even if he did.
   2. And with regard to a bed, if he is asked whether he slept in a particular bed, he may say that he did not, to avoid shame in case some unseemly residue is found on the bed.
   3. And he can lie with regard to a host [ushpiza], as one may say that he was not well received by a certain host to prevent everyone from taking advantage of the host’s hospitality.
9. What is the practical difference?
10. Mar Zutra says: With regard to returning a lost item on the basis of visual recognition.
    1. If we know about him that he alters his statements only with regard to these three matters, we return the lost item to him,
    2. but if he alters his statements with regard to other matters, we do not return the lost item to him.
11. The Gemara relates: A silver goblet was stolen from the host of Mar Zutra Ḥasida.
12. Mar Zutra saw a certain student of Torah who washed his hands and dried them on the cloak of another.
13. Mar Zutra said: This is the one who does not care about the property of another.
14. He bound that student, and the student then confessed that he stole the goblet.

1. It is taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar concedes that the finder is obligated to proclaim his find of new vessels that the eye of its purchaser has sufficiently seen.
2. And these are new vessels that the eye has not yet sufficiently seen and concerning which the finder is not obligated to proclaim his find:
   1. for example, branches [badei] upon which needles or utensils for spinning are hanging,
   2. or strings of axes.
3. When is it permitted for the one who finds all those items that are mentioned to keep them?
4. It is when he found them one at a time.
   1. But if he found them two at a time, the finder is obligated to proclaim his find.
5. What is the meaning of the term badei?
   1. It means branches.
6. And why did the tanna call them branches?
   1. It is because the item upon which one hangs another item [davar detalu bei midei], he calls it a branch,
      1. like that which we learned there (Sukka 44b): One leaf on one branch.
7. And likewise, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say:
   1. In the case of one who rescues a lost item from a lion,
      1. or from a bear,
      2. or from a leopard,
      3. or from a cheetah [bardelas],
      4. or from the tide of the sea,
      5. or from the flooding of a river;
   2. and in the case of one who finds a lost item in a main thoroughfare [seratya]
      1. or a large plaza [pelatya],
      2. or in any place where the multitudes are found,
   3. these items belong to him
      1. due to the fact that the owner despairs of their recovery.
8. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that,
   1. did he refer only to a place where there is a majority of gentiles;
      1. but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, the owner does not despair?
   2. Or perhaps, even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, he also says that the item belongs to the one who found it.
9. And if you say that even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, he also said that the item belongs to the one who found it,
   1. do the Rabbis disagree with him or do they not disagree?
   2. And if you say that the Rabbis disagree with him, in a place where there is a majority of Jews, they certainly disagree.
      1. In a place where there is a majority of gentiles, do the Rabbis disagree, or do they not disagree?
      2. And if you say that the Rabbis disagree with him even in a place where there is a majority of gentiles,
         1. is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion?
         2. And if you say that the halakha is in accordance with him,
            1. does this halakha apply specifically where there is a majority of gentiles, or even in a place where there is a majority of Jews?
10. Come and hear a proof from a baraita:
11. In the case of one who finds coins in synagogues [bevatei khenesiyyot] and study halls or in any place where the multitudes are found, these coins belong to him, due to the fact that the owner despairs of their recovery.
12. Who is the one about whom you heard that he follows the multitudes, i.e., that he attaches significance to the loss of an item in a place where the multitudes are present?
    1. It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.
13. Conclude from the baraita that even in a place where there is a majority of Jews.