Talmud Shiur Source Sheet #19

1. 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
   4. due to the fact that the owner despairs of their recovery.
2. 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.
3. 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?

1. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Come and hear a proof from a baraita:
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Conclude from the baraita that even in a place where there is a majority of Jews.
5. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the coins are scattered and there is no distinguishing mark on them.
6. If it is a case where the coins are scattered, why did the baraita establish the case specifically in a place where the multitudes are found?
   1. Even in a place where the multitudes are not found, the coins belong to the finder.
7. Rather, actually the baraita is referring to a case where the coins are bound, and with what are we dealing here?
   1. In the houses of assembly [bevatei khenesiyyot] of gentiles, not in synagogues.
   2. Study halls - what can be said? Our study halls in which gentile guards or custodians are sitting.
   3. Now that you have arrived at this, the batei khenesiyyot can be explained as our synagogues, in which gentiles are sitting.

​​​​​​​

1. Come and hear:
2. In a case when one found a lost item in a city where both Jews and gentiles reside,
   1. if the city has a majority of Jews he is obligated to proclaim his find.
   2. If there is a majority of gentiles he is not obligated to proclaim his find.
3. Who is the one about whom you heard that he follows the multitudes? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.
4. Resolve from this mishna that when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that the item belongs to the finder, it is referring specifically to a place where there is a majority of gentiles, but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, no, it does not belong to the finder.
5. In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
   1. In any case, resolve the dilemma from the mishna that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in a place where there is a majority of gentiles.
6. Rather, actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and he stated his opinion even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. And with what are we dealing here? This is a case where the found item is concealed. The Gemara asks: If the item is concealed, what is the reason the item is with the finder? Clearly it was placed there and the owner will return to retrieve it. And didn’t we learn in a mishna (25b): In a case where one found a vessel in a garbage dump, if the vessel is concealed he may not touch it, but if it is exposed, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find. It can be explained as Rav Pappa says elsewhere, that it is referring to a garbage dump that is not designed to be cleared, and the owner of the land reconsidered and decided to clear it. If one finds concealed vessels he should proclaim his find, because otherwise the vessels will be cleared with the rest of the garbage dump. Here too, the mishna is referring to a garbage dump that is not designed to be cleared, and the owner of the land reconsidered and decided to clear it. If one finds concealed items, his course of action is determined by the identity of the majority of the residents of the city. If they are Jews, he must proclaim his find, and if not, he need not proclaim his find. No proof can be cited to resolve the dilemma. And if you wish, say instead that actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Is it taught in the mishna that the items are his? It is taught that he is not obligated to proclaim his find. He may not keep them, but he shall place the items in his possession and a Jew will come and provide a distinguishing mark to describe the items and take them.