Bava Metzia 47

ובאושפיזא מאי נפקא מינה אמר מר זוטרא לאהדורי ליה אבידתא בטביעות עינא אי ידעינן ביה דלא משני אלא בהני תלת מהדרינן ליה ואי משני במילי אחריני לא מהדרינן ליה

hospitality.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding which a scholar may refuse to give correct information in order not to embarrass his host by inducing others to come and seek the latter's hospitality. ');">¹</span>

מר זוטרא חסידא אגניב ליה כסא דכספא מאושפיזא חזיא לההוא בר בי רב דמשי ידיה ונגיב בגלימא דחבריה אמר היינו האי דלא איכפת ליה אממונא דחבריה כפתיה ואודי

What is the point [in this observation]? — Mar Zutra said: [It is important in regard to the question] of returning a lost article, [recognised] by sight: If we know that [the claimant] conceals the truth in those three matters only we give it back to him, but if he does not speak the truth also in other matters we do not give it back to him. Mar Zutra the pious once had a silver vessel stolen from him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. omits 'from him'. The cup belonged accordingly to the hospice. (V. Rashi.) This version is supported by the fact that Mar Zutra acted in the case in a judicial capacity, and it is unlikely that he would act thus in a case affecting his own interests. V. Chajes. Z.H. Notes a.l.] ');">²</span>

תניא מודה ר"ש בן אלעזר בכלים חדשים ששבעתן העין שחייב להכריז ואלו הן כלים חדשים שלא שבעתן העין שאינו חייב להכריז כגון בדי מחטין וצינוריות ומחרוזות של קרדומות כל אלו שאמרו אימתי מותרים בזמן שמצאן אחד אחד אבל מצאן שנים שנים חייב להכריז

in a hospice. When he saw a disciple wash his hands and dry them on someone else's garment he said, 'This is the person [who stole the vessel], as he has no consideration for the property of his neighbour.' [The disciple] was then bound, and he confessed.

מאי בדי שוכי ואמאי קרו ליה בדי דבר דתלו ביה מידי בד קרו ליה כי ההוא דתנן התם עלה אחד בבד אחד

It has been taught: 'R. Simeon b. Eleazar admits that new vessels which the eye has sufficiently noted have to be announced. And the following new vessels which the eye has not sufficiently noted have not to be announced: such as — poles of needles,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Poles into which needles are stuck (Rashi). Some authorities leave out the word 'poles' and read 'needles' alone. Others regard the word 'poles' as separate from the word 'needles' (not as a construct but as an absolute plural form) and translate 'poles, needles,' etc. ');">³</span>

וכן היה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר המציל מן הארי ומן הדוב ומן הנמר ומן הברדלס ומן זוטו של ים ומשלוליתו של נהר המוצא בסרטיא ופלטיא גדולה ובכל מקום שהרבים מצויין שם הרי אלו שלו מפני שהבעלים מתיאשין מהן

knitting needles, and bundles of axes. All these objects mentioned above are permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be kept by the finder. ');">⁴</span>

איבעיא להו כי קאמר ר"ש בן אלעזר ברוב כנענים אבל ברוב ישראל לא או דלמא אפי' ברוב ישראל נמי אמר

only if they are found singly, but if found in twos one must announce them.' What are badde ['poles']? Rods. And why are they called badde ['poles']? Because an object on which things hang is called 'bad'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] the singular of [H] (poles). ');">⁵</span>

אם תמצא לומר אפילו ברוב ישראל נמי אמר פליגי רבנן עליה או לא פליגי

— as is stated there:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So according to many texts; cur. edd., 'as we learnt' is evidently a copyist's error, as the passage cited (Suk. 44b) is not Mishnaic but Amoraic.] ');">⁶</span>

ואם תמצא לומר פליגי ברוב ישראל ודאי פליגי ברוב כנענים פליגי או לא פליגי

One leaf on one branch ['bad']. 'R. Simeon b. Eleazar also said: If one rescues anything from a lion, a bear, a leopard, a panther, or from the tide of the sea, or from the flood of a river, or if one finds anything on the high road, or in a broad square, or in any place where crowds are frequent, it belongs to the finder — because the owner has given it up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A.Z. 43a. ');">⁷</span>

ואם תמצא לומר פליגי אפי' ברוב כנענים הלכה כמותו או אין הלכה כמותו

The question was asked: Did R. Simeon b. Eleazar say this [with regard to things found in places] where the majority of the people are heathens,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Heathens do not return lost articles (v. infra p. 152, n. 3), and consequently do not come within the provision of the law relating to the announcement of finds. Moreover, according to Tosaf., even if it were certain that the article belonged to an Israelite, there would be no need to return it because the owner, presuming that a heathen found it, would despair of recovering it. v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 666.] ');">⁸</span>

אם תמצא לומר הלכה כמותו דוקא ברוב כנענים או אפילו ברוב ישראל

but not where the majority are Israelites, or [did he say this] also [with regard to things found in places] where the majority are Israelites? And if you come to the conclusion that [he said this] also where the majority are Israelites do the Rabbis differ from him or not? And if you come to the conclusion that they differ from him — they would certainly differ where the majority are Israelites — do they differ where the majority are heathens, or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In view of the principle that we do not follow the majority in money matters.] ');">⁹</span>

ת"ש המוצא מעות בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ובכל מקום שהרבים מצויין שם הרי אלו שלו מפני שהבעלים מתיאשין מהן מאן שמעת ליה דאזיל בתר רובא ר"ש בן אלעזר שמעת מינה אפילו ברוב ישראל נמי

And if you come to the conclusion that they differ even where the majority are heathens, is the law in accordance with his view or not? And if you come to the conclusion that the law is in accordance with his view, does this apply only to the case where the majority are heathens, or also to the case where the majority are Israelites? — Come and hear: If one finds money in a Synagogue or a house of study, or in any other place where crowds are frequent, it belongs to the finder, because the owner has given it up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 21b. ');">¹⁰</span>

הב"ע במפוזרין אי במפוזרין מאי אריא מקום שהרבים מצויין שם אפילו אין הרבים מצויין שם

Now, who is the authority that lays it down that we go according to the majority<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that in the question whether a found article is to be returned depends on considerations relating to the majority of the people that frequent the place where the article is found. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא לעולם בצרורין והכא במאי עסקינן בבתי כנסיות של כנענים בתי מדרשות מאי איכא למימר בתי מדרשות דידן דיתבי בהו כנענים השתא דאתית להכי בתי כנסיות נמי דידן דיתבי בהו כנענים

if not R. Simeon b. Eleazar? You must therefore conclude that [he applies this principle] also to a case where the majority are Israelites!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the majority of those congregating in a Synagogue are Israelites. ');">¹²</span>

ת"ש מצא בה אבידה אם רוב ישראל חייב להכריז אם רוב כנענים אינו חייב להכריז מאן שמעת ליה דאמר אזלינן בתר רובא רשב"א שמעת מינה כי קאמר רשב"א ברוב כנענים אבל ברוב ישראל לא

— Here we deal with [a case where the money found was] scattered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such a case the Rabbis also hold that the money belongs to the finder, as stated in the Mishnah, supra 21a. ');">¹³</span>

הא מני רבנן היא תפשוט מינה דמודו ליה רבנן לרשב"א ברוב כנענים

But if [the money was] scattered, why refer to places where crowds are frequent? It would apply also to places where crowds are not frequent!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scattered money has no identification mark and is given up by the owner as soon as it is lost, even if crowds do not frequent the place where it has been dropped. ');">¹⁴</span>

אלא לעולם רשב"א היא ואפי' ברוב ישראל נמי והכא במאי עסקי' בטמון אי בטמון מאי עבידתיה גביה והתנן מצא כלי באשפה מכוסה לא יגע בו מגולה נוטל ומכריז

— Admittedly, therefore, [the reference is to money found] in bundles,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which present an identification mark and are only given up when lost in a place which is frequented by crowds. ');">¹⁵</span>

כדאמר רב פפא באשפה שאינה עשויה לפנות ונמלך עליה לפנותה הכא נמי באשפה שאינה עשויה לפנות ונמלך עליה לפנותה

but we deal here with Synagogues<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'houses of assembly', or 'meeting places,' not Jewish houses of prayer. It is in this sense that the term is used here. ');">¹⁶</span> of heathens. But how can this be applied to 'houses of study'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the term 'Synagogues' could be interpreted as meaning secular meeting places used by Gentiles, how could the term [H] applied only to Colleges where Jewish law is studied and expounded, mean anything but Jewish Colleges frequented by Jews? ');">¹⁷</span> — [The reference is to] our houses of study in which heathens stay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jewish Colleges situated outside the Jewish quarters and guarded by Gentile watchmen placed there for the purpose. ');">¹⁸</span> Now that you have arrived at this conclusion [the reference to] 'Synagogues' [can] also [be explained as meaning] our Synagogues in which heathens stay. Come and hear: If one finds therein<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a city inhabited by Jews and heathens. ');">¹⁹</span> a lost object, then if the majority are Israelites it has to be announced, but if the majority are heathens it has not to be announced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mak. II, 8. ');">²⁰</span> Now who is the authority that lays it down that we go according to the majority if not R. Simeon b. Eleazar? You must therefore conclude that R. Simeon b. Eleazar says this only where the majority are heathens, but not where the majority are Israelites! — [No.] This is the view of the Rabbis. But then you could conclude therefrom that the Rabbis accept R. Simeon b. Eleazar's view in the case where the majority are heathens! — Admittedly, therefore, this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This cited Mishnah. ');">²¹</span> represents the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, and his ruling applies also to a case where the majority are Israelites, but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This cited Mishnah. ');">²¹</span> we deal [with a case where the money was] concealed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it was not lost at all, and if the majority were Israelites the finder would have to announce it. ');">²²</span> But if it was concealed, what has [the finder] to do with it? Have we not learnt: 'if one finds a vessel in a dungheap, if covered up he may not touch it; but if uncovered he must take it and announce it'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the article may have been thrown on the dungheap accidentally (Mishnah, infra 25b). ');">²³</span> — As R. papa explained:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">²⁴</span> [The reference is] to a dungheap which is not regularly cleared away, and which [the owner] unexpectedly decided to clear away — so here also [the reference is] to a dungheap which is not regularly cleared away, and which [the owner] unexpectedly decided to clear away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the finder must take the article away and announce it. (Cf. infra 25b.) Had the owner of the dungheap been in the habit of clearing it away regularly the person who placed the article there could not have claimed it, as the 'loss' would have been a deliberate one. ');">²⁵</span>