Midrash for Bava Metzia 53:18
ואידך הא דרבי יוחנן מנא ליה נפקא ליה ממנו ואידך ממנו לא משמע ליה
Wherein do they differ? — Said Abaye: They differ as to the texts from which the law is derived: one Master deduces it from, <i>'which shall be lost to him</i>;' the other, from, <i>'and thou hast found it</i>.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But there is no difference in actual law. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
Sifrei Devarim
"And thus shall you do with his ass and thus shall you do with his garment": This tells me of these only. Whence do I derive (the same for) other lost objects? From (Ibid.) "and thus shall you do with every lost object of your brother." If so, why is "garment" singled out? Is it not included with all the rest? To serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as a garment is characterized by possessing (identifying) signs and claimants, thus all objects that are thus characterized (must, if found, be publicized for the owners to come forward).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy