Bava Metzia 50

כאבני בית קוליס מהו

What if they are arranged as the stones of a Merculis way-mark?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a way-mark dedicated to Merculis or Mercurius, a Roman divinity identified with the Greek Hermes. The Gemara states below how these were disposed. Our text actually reads 'Kulis', and Tosaf. conjectures that this was the true name of the deity, but the Hamburg MS. reads 'Merculis'. ');">¹</span>

ת"ש דתניא מצא מעות מפוזרות הרי אלו שלו כאבני בית קוליס חייב להכריז ואלו הן אבני בית קוליס אחת מכאן ואחת מכאן ואחת על גביהן

— Come and hear: For it has been taught: If one finds scattered coins, they belong to him; [but if they lay] as the stones of a Merculis way-mark, he must proclaim them. And thus are the stones of a Mercules way-mark arranged: one at each side, and a third on top of both.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The Baraitha has in mind the trilithon or dolmen erected in front of the image.] ');">²</span>

תנו רבנן המוצא סלע בשוק ומצאו חבירו ואמר לו שלי היא חדשה היא נירונית היא של מלך פלוני היא לא אמר כלום ולא עוד אלא אפילו שמו כתוב עליה לא אמר כלום לפי שאין סימן למטבע דאמר דלמא אפוקי אפקה ומאיניש אחרינא נפל:

Our Rabbis taught: If one finds a <i>sela'</i> in a market place, and then his neighbour accosts him and says. 'It is mine; it is new, a Nero coin or of such and such an emperor' — he is ignored.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he has said nothing'. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מצא אחר הגפה או אחר הגדר גוזלות מקושרים או בשבילין שבשדות הרי זה לא יגע בהן מצא כלי באשפה אם מכוסה לא יגע בו אם מגולה נוטל ומכריז:

Moreover, even if his name is written upon it, his claim is still rejected,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. last note. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי טעמא דאמרינן הני אינש אצנעינהו ואי שקיל להו לית להו למרייהו סימנא בגווייהו הלכך לשבקינהו עד דאתי מרייהו ושקיל להו

because an identification mark is of no avail in respect to a coin, for one can say, He may have expended it and someone else lost it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it fell from another person.' ');">⁵</span>

ואמאי ליהוי קשר סימנא אמר רבי אבא בר זבדא אמר רב במקושרין בכנפיהן דכולי עלמא הכי מקטרי להו

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN FINDS FLEDGLINGS TIED TOGETHER BEHIND A FENCE OR WALL, OR IN THE PATHWAYS THROUGH FIELDS, HE MUST NOT TOUCH THEM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These places are semi-guarded, and therefore the birds may have been placed there, as explained in the Gemara. ');">⁶</span>

ולהוי מקום סימן אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא במדדין אי במדדין מעלמא אתו ומותרין

IF A MAN FINDS A VESSEL IN A DUNGHEAP: IF COVERED UP, HE MUST NOT TOUCH IT;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the covering shews that it was placed there. ');">⁷</span>

איכא למימר מעלמא אתו ואיכא למימר אינש אצנעינהו והוה ליה ספק הינוח ואמר רבי אבא בר זבדא אמר רב כל ספק הינוח לכתחילה לא יטול ואם נטל לא יחזיר:

IF UNCOVERED. HE MUST TAKE AND PROCLAIM IT.

מצא כלי באשפה מכוסה לא יגע בו מגולה נוטל ומכריז: ורמינהו מצא כלי טמון באשפה נוטל ומכריז שכן דרך אשפה לפנות

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first ruling in the case of the fledglings. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב זביד לא קשיא הא בכובי וכסי הא בסכיני והמניק בכובי וכסי לא יגע בסכיני והמניק נוטל ומכריז

— Because we say, A person hid them here, and if he [the finder] takes them, their owner has no means of identifying them. Therefore he must leave them until their owner comes and takes them. But why? let the knot be a means of identification!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner can say where they were tied together. ');">⁹</span>

רב פפא אמר הא והא בכובי וכסי ולא קשיא כאן באשפה העשויה לפנות כאן באשפה שאינה עשויה לפנות

— Said R. Abba b. Zabda in Rab's name: They were tied by their wings, everyone tying them thus. Then let the place [where they were found] be an identification mark. — Said R. 'Ukba b. Hama: It refers to such that can hop. But if they hop, they may have come from elsewhere, and should be permitted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the owner has no means of identifying them. ');">¹⁰</span>

אשפה העשויה לפנות אבידה מדעת היא אלא באשפה שאינה עשויה לפנות ונמלך עליה לפנותה

— One may surmise that they came from elsewhere, but one can also surmise that a person hid them there: hence it is a case of doubtful placing, and R. Abba b. Zabda said in Rab's name: Whenever it is doubtful if an article was left [in a certain spot], one must not take it in the first instance; but if he took, he need not return it.

בשלמא לרב פפא היינו דקתני שכן דרך אשפה לפנות אלא לרב זביד מאי שכן דרך אשפה לפנות שכן דרך אשפה לפנות לה כלים קטנים:

IF A MAN FINDS A VESSEL ON A DUNG HEAP: IF COVERED UP, HE MUST NOT TOUCH IT; IF EXPOSED, HE MUST TAKE AND PROCLAIM IT. But the following contradicts it: If one finds an article hidden in a dungheap, he must take and proclaim it, because it is the nature of a dungheap to be cleared away!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if he does not take it, a heathen or an unscrupulous Jew may do so when the heap is cleared and keep it for himself. — Now, 'hidden' means that it is covered up, yet it is stated that he must take and proclaim it. ');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מצא בגל ובכותל ישן הרי אלו שלו מצא בכותל חדש מחציו ולחוץ שלו מחציו ולפנים של בעל הבית אם היה משכירו לאחרים אפילו בתוך הבית הרי אלו שלו:

— Said R. Zebid: There is no difficulty. The one refers to casks and cups; the other to knives and forks: in the case of casks and cups, he must not touch them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are too large to have been thrown there inadvertently. ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנא מפני שיכול לומר לו של אמוריים הן אטו אמורים מצנעי ישראל לא מצנעי לא צריכא

in the case of knives and forks, he must take and proclaim them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they may have been thrown there by accident. ');">¹³</span> R. papa said: Both refer to casks and cups, yet there is no difficulty. The one refers to a dungheap that is regularly cleared away; the other, to one that is not cleared away regularly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the former case the finder must take and proclaim them; in the latter, he must not touch them. ');">¹⁴</span> 'A dungheap which is regularly cleared away'! — But then it is a voluntary loss?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then proclaim them? ');">¹⁵</span> — But it refers to a dungheap which was not regularly cleared away, but he [its owner] decided to clear it out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 151. ');">¹⁶</span> Now, as for R. papa, it is well; on that account<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the distinction he draws. ');">¹⁷</span> it is stated, 'because it is the nature of a dunghill to be cleared away.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at any time. ');">¹⁸</span> But according to R. Zebid, what is meant by, 'because it is the nature of a dunghill to be cleared away'? — [This:] Because it is the nature of a dunghill that small articles should be cleared therein.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence a knife or fork (v. p. 159 n. 8) must be taken and proclaimed. ');">¹⁹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF HE FINDS [AN ARTICLE] AMIDST DEBRIS OR IN AN OLD WALL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These had cavities in which the objects could be placed. ');">²⁰</span> THEY BELONG TO HIM. IF HE FINDS AUGHT IN A NEW WALL: IF IN THE OUTER HALF [THEREOF], IT IS HIS; IN THE INNER HALF, IT BELONGS TO THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to a wall fronting a public thorough. fare. If the find is in the 'outer half,' i.e., the part facing the street, it must have been placed there by a passer-by, who has forgotten it; therefore it belongs to the finder. If in the 'inner half,' i.e., the part facing the house it encloses, the owner of the house must have placed it there. ');">²¹</span> BUT IF IT [THE HOUSE] USED TO BE RENTED TO OTHERS, EVEN IF HE FINDS [ARTICLES] IN THE HOUSE ITSELF, THEY BELONG TO HIM. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. A Tanna taught: Because he [the finder] can say to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner of the ruins or the old wall. ');">²²</span> They belonged to Amorites.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to one of the races that formerly inhabited Palestine. ');">²³</span> Do then only Amorites hide objects. and not Israelites?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely if the article is in the inner half of the cavity, nearer the house, it should belong to the owner of the house. ');">²⁴</span> — This holds good only