Commentary for Bava Metzia 45:15

ואמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא הלכתא כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו ברשות היחיד אי דרך נפילה הרי אלו שלו אי דרך הנחה נוטל ומכריז וזה וזה בדבר שאין בו סימן אבל בדבר שיש בו סימן לא שנא ברה"ר ולא שנא ברשות היחיד בין דרך נפילה ובין דרך הנחה חייב להכריז

It must therefore be assumed that [the Tannaim] differ regarding an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on: One holds that it is not a valid mark, and the other holds that it is a valid mark!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna will say that as it is liable to be trodden on and to disappear it is not a valid mark, and R. Judah will say that as long as the mark is there it is valid. ');">¹³</span> — R. Zebid replied in the name of Raba: If you assume that the first Tanna [of the Mishnah] is of the opinion that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid mark, and that one may pass by eatables, why should one have to announce [the finding of] home-made loaves? Therefore R. Zebid said in the name of Raba that all are of the opinion that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is a valid mark,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This accounts for the need of announcing home-made loaves. ');">¹⁴</span> and that one may pass by eatables. but here [in our Mishnah the Tannaim] differ regarding an identification mark which may have, come of itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as money found in home-made loaves. ');">¹⁵</span> the first Tanna being of the opinion that a distinguishing mark which may have come of itself is not a valid mark, and R. Judah being of the opinion that it is a valid mark. Rabbah [on the other hand] will tell you that all agree that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid mark, and that one may not pass by eatables,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which explains the ruling of R. Judah in our Mishnah. ');">¹⁶</span> but that [the Tannaim] differ here regarding a mark which may have come of itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 143. n. 7. ');">¹⁷</span> the first Tanna being of the opinion that it is not a valid mark, and R. Judah being of the opinion that it is a valid mark. Some have another version:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which the difference of opinion between the Rabbis refers to the question whether one may pass by eatables or not. ');">¹⁸</span> The prevalent opinion was then that all would agree that an identification mark which might have come of itself was a valid mark, while an identification mark which was likely to be trodden on was not a valid mark. It must therefore be assumed that [the Tannaim] differ as to whether one may walk on eatables or not, one holding that it is permitted, and the other holding it is not permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir would hold that it is permitted and therefore the mark is not valid, while R. Judah would hold the contrary view. ');">¹⁹</span> — R. Zebid then replied in the name of Raba: If you assume that the first Tanna holds that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid mark, and that one may pass by eatables, why should one have to announce [the finding of] home-made loaves? Therefore R. Zebid said in the name of Raba that all are of the opinion that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is a valid mark, and that one may pass by eatables, but here [in our Mishnah the Tannaim] differ regarding an identification mark which may have come of itself, the first Tanna being of the opinion that an identification mark which may have come of itself is not a valid mark, and R. Judah being of the opinion that it is a valid mark. Rabbah [on the other hand] will tell you that all agree that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid mark, and that one may not pass by eatables, but that [the Tannaim] differ here regarding a mark which may have come of itself, the first Tanna being of the opinion that an identification mark which may have come of itself is not a valid mark, and R. Judah being of the opinion that it is a valid mark. R. Zebid said in the name of Raba: The general principle in regard to a loss is: If [the loser] has said, 'Woe! I have sustained a monetary loss,' he has given it up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the finder is entitled to keep it. ');">²⁰</span> R. Zebid also said in the name of Raba: The law is: Small sheaves, [if found] in a public thoroughfare, belong to the finder; [if found] on private grounds they belong to the finder when [discovered in the position of things] dropped [accidentally], but [if found in the position of things] laid down [deliberately, the finder] has to take them up and announce them. Both [rulings] apply only to a [case where the lost] article has no identification mark, but in a [case where the lost] article has an identification mark it has to be announced irrespective of whether [it has been found in the position of things] dropped [accidentally] or whether [it has been found in the position of things] laid down [deliberately].

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 45:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.