Bava Metzia 49

Chapter 49

א שלשה מטבעות זה על גב זה כריכות ברה"י וככרות של בעה"ב וגיזי צמר הלקוחין מבית האומן כדי יין וכדי שמן הרי אלו חייב להכריז:
1 THREE COINS ON THE TOP OF EACH OTHER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Gemara below. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דמצא פירות בכלי ומעות בכיס הא כלי ולפניו פירות כיס ולפניו מעות הרי אלו שלו תנינא להא דתנו רבנן מצא כלי ולפניו פירות כיס ולפניו מעות הרי אלו שלו מקצתן בכלי ומקצתן על גבי קרקע מקצתן בכיס ומקצתן על גבי קרקע חייב להכריז
2 BUNDLES OF SHEAVES IN PRIVATE PREMISES, HOME-MADE LOAVES, FLEECES OF WOOL FROM THE CRAFTSMAN'S WORKSHOP, JARS OF WINE OR JARS OF OIL, THEY HAVE TO BE PROCLAIMED.
ג ורמינהו מצא דבר שאין בו סימן בצד דבר שיש בו סימן חייב להכריז בא בעל סימן ונטל את שלו זכה הלה בדבר שאין בו סימן
3 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Obviously it is only when fruit is found in a vessel, or money in a purse. [that they have to be proclaimed]; but if the fruit is in front of the vessel, or the money in front of the purse, they belong to the finder. Our Mishnah thus teaches the same as our Rabbis taught [in another place]: If one finds fruit [lying] in front of a vessel, or money in front of a purse, they belong to the finder. If [the fruit is] partly in the vessel and partly on the ground, or if [the money is] partly in the purse and partly on the ground, they have to be proclaimed.
ד אמר רב זביד לא קשיא הא בכובא וכיתנא הא בצנא ופירי
4 But the following contradicts it: If a man found an object lacking an identification mark at the side of an object possessing it, he is bound to proclaim [them];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. a purse and money; if the purse is identified, the money too belongs to its owner. This contradicts the Baraitha just quoted. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ה רב פפא אמר הא והא בצנא ופירי ולא קשיא הא דאשתייר בה מידי הא דלא אשתייר בה מידי
5 if the identifier of the mark came and took his own,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But disclaimed ownership of the other object. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ו ואיבעית אימא הא והא דלא אשתייר בה מידי ולא קשיא הא דמהדרי אפיה לגבי פירי הא דלא מהדרי אפיה לגבי פירי
6 the other [sc. the finder] is entitled to the object without a mark! — Said R. Zebid: There is no difficulty. The former [Baraitha] refers to a cask and flax; the latter, to a basket and fruit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cask is identifiable, but not the flax; similarly the basket and the fruit. Now, had the flax fallen out of the cask, some would have remained therein; hence it is assumed that they were lying together by chance, and so the flax belongs to the finder. Fruit, however, can easily roll out of its basket entirely, and therefore both are assumed to belong to the same person. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ז ואיבעית אימא הא והא דמהדרי אפיה לגבי פירי ולא קשיא הא דאית לה אוגנין לצנא הא דלית לה אוגנין לצנא:
7 R. papa said: Both refer to a basket and fruit, yet there is no difficulty. The latter [Baraitha] holds good if something was still left therein; the former, if nothing was left therein.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papa would appear to reject R. Zebid's distinction. Rashi, however, observes that fruit baskets generally had an inside rim, which would prevent ail the fruit from rolling out. In that case, R. Papa and R. Zebid may agree, R. Papa referring to baskets with rims, R. Zebid to rimless ones. In point of fact, whereas Maimonides accepts R. Papa's explanation but rejects R. Zebid's, shewing that he holds them contradictory. Asheri and the Tur accept both. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ח צבורי פירות וצבורי מעות: שמעת מינה מנין הוי סימן תני צבור פירות שמעת מינה מקום הוי סימן תני צבורי פירות:
8 Alternately, both [Baraithas] mean that nothing is left therein, yet there is no difficulty. In the latter, its [sc. the basket's] mouth is turned towards the fruit; in the former, it is not. Another alternative: in both its mouth faces the fruit, yet there is no difficulty. The former [Baraitha] treats of baskets with rims; the latter, of the baskets without.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 3. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ט שלשה מטבעות זה על גב זה: אמר רבי יצחק מגדלאה והוא שעשויין כמגדלין תניא נמי הכי מצא מעות מפוזרות הרי אלו שלו עשויין כמגדלים חייב להכריז ואלו הן עשויין כמגדלים שלשה מטבעין זה על גב זה
9 HEAPS OF FRUIT; HEAPS OF COINS. This proves that number is an identification mark!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since fruit and coins cannot be identified, the only possible distinguishing feature is the number of heaps. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
י הא גופא קשיא אמרת מצא מעות מפוזרות הרי אלו שלו הא משלחפי שלחופי חייב להכריז אימא סיפא עשויין כמגדלין חייב להכריז הא משלחפי שלחופי הרי אלו שלו תנא כל שאין עשויין כמגדלין מפוזרות קרי להו
10 — [No.] Read: A heap of fruit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though the Mishnah employs the plural, that is only in a general way; yet the same holds good even of a single heap. In that case, of course, there is no number, the place where it was found being the mark of identification. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יא א"ר חנינא לא שנו אלא של שלשה מלכים אבל של מלך אחד אינו חייב להכריז היכי דמי אי דעשויין כמגדלין אפילו של מלך אחד נמי ואי דאין עשויין כמגדלין אפילו של שלשה מלכים נמי לא
11 Then it proves that place is a means of identification! [No.] Read: HEAPS OF FRUIT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though it has just been stated that the plural may be generic, on the other hand it may be particularly used, in which case number is the distinguishing feature. Hence the Mishnah merely proves that either number or place is an identification mark, but not both, and it cannot be shewn which. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יב אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר לא שנו אלא של מלך אחד כעין שלשה מלכים (אבל של מלך אחד אינו חייב להכריז) והיכי דמי דעשויין כמגדלים רויחא תתאה ומציעא עילויה וזוטא עילויה מציעא דאמרינן אנוחי אנחינהו אבל של מלך אחד דכולהו כי הדדי נינהו אע"ג דמנחי אהדדי הרי אלו שלו אימר אתרמויי אתרמי ובהדי הדדי נפול
12 THREE COINS ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. R. Isaac said: provided that they lie pyramid-wise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Conically, a large coin at the bottom, a smaller one above it, and so on. These must have been placed so, and the owner will be able to identify them by the manner of their disposal. — The reason of such disposal might have been that the owner found himself bearing the money on the Sabbath, or on Friday just before the commencement of the Sabbath; v. Shab. 153b. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יג ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו של מלך אחד נמי מכריז מאי מכריז מנין מאי איריא תלתא אפי' תרין נמי אמר רבינא טבעא מכריז
13 It has been taught likewise: If a man finds scattered coins, they belong to him. If they are arranged pyramid-wise he is bound to proclaim them. Now is not this self-contradictory? [First] you state, 'If a man finds scattered coins they belong to him,' thus implying, but if they overlap,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lying partly on each other and partly on the ground. — Rashi. Jast: but if they lie irregularly, some of them piled, others scattered. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יד בעי ר' ירמיה כשיר מהו כשורה מהו כחצובה מהו כסולם מהו
14 he must proclaim them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they would not have fallen, but must have been placed thus. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
טו פשוט מהא חדא דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה כל שאילו מכניס לה קיסם ביניהן ונוטלם בבת אחת חייב להכריז
15 Then consider the latter clause: 'If they are arranged pyramid-wise, He is bound to proclaim them,' implying, however, that if they merely overlap, they are his? — All [coins] not arranged conically the Tanna designates scattered.
טז בעי רב אשי
16 R. Hanina said: This was taught only of [coins of] three kings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each coin being of a different reign. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> but if of one king, he need not proclaim them. How so? If they lie pyramid-wise, then even [if they are] of one king [the proclamation should be made]; if they do not lie pyramid-wise, even if they are of three kings there should be no need [to proclaim them]? — But if stated, it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement of R. Hanina. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> was thus stated: 'This was taught only of [coins of] one king, yet similar to those of three.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of different sizes. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> How so? When they lie pyramidically, the broadest at the bottom, the medium-sized upon it, and the smallest on top of the middle one; in which case we assume that they were placed thus. If, however, they are of one king, all being of equal size, then even if they are lying upon each other they belong to him [the finder]: we assume that they fell thus together by mere chance. R. Johanan [however] maintained: Even if of the same king,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of equal size. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> he must proclaim them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are arranged exactly on top of each other. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> Now, what does he proclaim — the number?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That three coins were found, and the owner identifies them by their arrangement. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Then why particularly three — even if two it should be the same? — Said Rabina: He announces 'coins'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without stating a number; two being the smallest possible number of 'coins', it cannot be accepted as a mark of identification; hence the find is not proclaimed for less than three. The translation and explanation follows Asheri, who regards the question as bearing directly on the Mishnah and not on the views of R. Hanina and R. Johanan, as Rashi appears to regard it. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> R. Jeremiah propounded: What if they were disposed in a circle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'like a bracelet'. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> in a row, triangularly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as a tripod.' ');"><sup>21</sup></span> or ladderwise?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The greater part of the middle coin lying on the bottom one, and the greater part of the top coin lying on the middle one. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — Solve at least one [problem]. For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: Wherever a chip can be inserted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Adopting reading of some texts; cur. edd.: 'between them'.] ');"><sup>23</sup></span> whereby they [the coins] may be lifted simultaneously, a proclamation must be made.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they must have been placed so. Hence a proclamation is necessary if they lay ladderwise. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> R. Ashi propounded: