Commentary for Bava Metzia 54:20

אמר ליה התם סברא הוא אחד הלוה משלשה יחזיר ללוה דגבי לוה שכיחי גבי מלוה לא שכיחי ש"מ מלוה נפול שלשה שלוו מאחד יחזור למלוה דגבי מלוה שכיחי גבי לוה לא שכיחי

a signet ring, because one can commit forgery therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. adds here the passage it omits above, v. n. 7.] ');">²⁰</span> Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? [For it was taught:] Testimony may not be given<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the identity of a corpse. ');">¹²</span> on the strength of a mole; but Eleazar b. Mahabai said: Testimony may be so given.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 120a. ');">²¹</span> Surely then they differ in this: The first Tanna holds that identification marks are [only] Rabbinically valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore they cannot establish identity to break the marriage bond. Cf. p. 169, n. 1. ');">²²</span> whilst Eleazar b. Mahabai holds that they are Biblically valid? — Said Raba: All may agree that they are Biblically valid: they differ here as to whether a mole is to be found on one's affinity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a person born at the same hour and under the same planetary influence. ');">²³</span> One Master maintains that a mole is [generally] found on a person's affinity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it cannot establish identity. ');">²⁴</span> whilst the other holds that it is not. Alternatively, all agree that it is not; they differ here as to whether identification marks<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Yeb, 120a, where this discussion is repeated, the text reads 'mole'. ');">²⁵</span> are liable to change after death. One Master maintains: Identification marks are liable to change after death;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore they cannot establish identity. ');">²⁶</span> the other, that they are not. Alternatively, all agree that a mole is not liable to change after death, and identification marks are valid only by Rabbinical law; they differ here as to whether a mole is a perfect mark of identification. One Master maintains that a mole is a perfect mark of identification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which leaves no doubt whatsoever. Even if identification marks in general are only Rabbinically valid, that is when they are not absolutely perfect; but if they are, they certainly have Biblical force. ');">²⁷</span> whilst the other holds that it is not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus so far the problem remains unsolved. ');">²⁸</span> Raba said: If you should resolve that identification marks are not Biblically valid, why do we return a lost article in reliance on these marks?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., why did the Rabbis give them validity for this purpose? ');">²⁹</span> Because one who finds a lost article is pleased that it should be returned on the strength of identification marks, so that should he lose anything, it will likewise be returned to him through marks of identification. Said R. Safra to Raba: Can then one confer a benefit upon himself with money that does not belong to him! But [the reason is this:] the loser himself is pleased to offer identification marks and take it back.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The text is difficult and hardly intelligible as it stands. Read with some versions: 'The loser himself is pleased that it should be returned (to any claimant) on the strength of identification marks.'] ');">³⁰</span> He knows full well that he has no witnesses; therefore he argues to himself, 'Everyone does not know its perfect identification marks,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if others have seen and can generally describe it, they cannot give a minute and detailed description. [R. Safra employs the term 'perfect identification marks' ([H]) in a loose sense, as any identification mark in general is valid for the recovery of a lost article; cf. also infra p. 177. n. 4. V. R. Nissim, Hiddushim, a.l.] ');">³¹</span> but I can state its perfect identification marks and take it back.' But what of that which we learnt: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If it was one man who had borrowed from three, he [the finder] must return [them] to the debtor; if three had borrowed from one, he must return them to the creditor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 20a, Mishnah. ');">³²</span> Is then the debtor pleased that it [the promissory note] is returned to the creditor? — In that instance, he replied to him, it is a matter of logic. If it was one man who had borrowed from three, he must return [them] to the debtor, because they are to be found [together] in the debtor's possession, but not in the creditor's:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there are three separate creditors. ');">³³</span> hence the debtor must have dropped it. If three had borrowed from one, it must be returned to the creditor, because they are to be found in the creditor's possession, but not in the debtor's.

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 54:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.