Bava Metzia 51

Chapter 51

א דשתיך טפי:

1 if it [the find] is exceedingly rusty.1

ב בכותל חדש מחציו ולחוץ שלו מחציו ולפנים של בעל הבית:

2 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. R. Ashi said: A knife follows its handle, and a purse its straps.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a knife is found in a wall cavity, if the handle points inwards, it belongs to the owner of the house; outwards, it is assumed to have been placed there by a passer-by; similarly with a purse and its straps or laces. ');">2

ג אמר רב אשי סכינא בתר קתא וכיסא בתר שנציה

3 Then when our Mishnah states, IF IN THE OUTER HALF [THEREOF], IT IS HIS; IN THE INNER HALF, IT BELONGS TO THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE: let us see whether the handle or the straps point outwards or inwards? — The Mishnah refers to tow-cotton and bar metal.3

ד ואלא מתני' דקתני מחציו ולחוץ שלו מחציו ולפנים של בעל הבית ולחזי אי קתא לגאו אי קתא לבר אי שנציה לגאו אי שנציה לבר מתני' באודרא ונסכא

4 A Tanna taught: If the wall [cavity] was filled therewith, they divide.4

ה תנא אם היה כותל ממולא מהן חולקין פשיטא לא צריכא דמשפע בחד גיסא מהו דתימא אשתפוכי אישתפוך קמ"ל:

5 But is that not obvious? — It is necessary [to state this] only when it [the cavity or the wall] slopes to one side: I might have thought that it [the article found there] had slid down.5

ו אם היה משכירו לאחרים אפילו (מצא) בתוך הבית הרי אלו שלו: ואמאי ליזיל בתר בתרא

6 Therefore we are taught [otherwise].

ז מי לא תנן מעות שנמצאו לפני סוחרי בהמה לעולם מעשר בהר הבית חולין

7 BUT IF IT [THE HOUSE] USED TO BE RENTED TO OTHERS, EVEN IF ONE FINDS [ARTICLES] IN THE HOUSE ITSELF, THEY BELONG TO HIM. Why so: let it be assigned to the last [tenant]?6

ח ובירושלים בשאר ימות השנה חולין בשעת הרגל הכל מעשר

8 Did we not learn: Money found in front of cattle dealers at all times is [accounted as] tithe; on the Temple Mount, it is hullin; in [the rest of] Jerusalem, at any other part of the year, it is hullin; at the Festival season, it is tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shek. VII, 2. If money is found in Jerusalem, the question arises, what is its status — is it ordinary secular coins (hullin) or tithe money? This was because the second-tithe (v. infra p. 517. n. 5) had to be eaten in Jerusalem or its monetary equivalent expended there, which money likewise was governed by the law of second tithe. Now, most of the flesh eaten in Jerusalem was bought with second tithe money, and generally took the form of peace offerings; when one could not stay long enough in Jerusalem to expend all the tithe money there, he would distribute it amongst the poor, or give it to his friends in Jerusalem. Consequently. if money is found in front of cattle dealers, whatever the time of the year, it is assumed to be of the second tithe. On the other hand, if found on the Temple Mount, we assume it to be hullin, even at Festival time, when most of the money handled is tithe, because the greater part of the year is not Festival, and then ordinary hullin is in circulation, and this money might have been lost before the Festival. But if found in the other streets of Jerusalem, a distinction is drawn, as stated in the text. ');">7

ט ואמר ר' שמעיה בר זעירא מאי טעמא הואיל ושוקי ירושלים עשוין להתכבד בכל יום אלמא אמרינן קמאי קמאי אזלו והני אחריני נינהו הכא נמי קמא קמא אזל והני דבתרא הוא

9 And R. Shemaia b. Ze'ira observed thereon: What is the reason? Because the streets of Jerusalem8

י אמר ריש לקיש משום בר קפרא כגון שעשאו פונדק לשלשה ישראל

10 were swept daily. This proves that we assume: the earlier [losses] have gone, and these [coins] are different ones. So here too, the earlier [deposits] have gone, and these belong to the last [tenant]?9

יא שמע מינה הלכה כר"ש בן אלעזר אפי' ברוב ישראל

11 — Said Resh Lakish on the authority of Bar Kappara: It means e.g., that he [the owner of the house] had let it as a temporary lodging to three people [simultaneously].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to the tenant (so it appears to be understood by Tosaf. a.l. s.v. [H] and [H]). Therefore whichever tenant lost it would have abandoned it in despair of its being returned, in accordance with the view stated by R. Simeon b. Eleazar supra 24a: three constitute a multitude. ');">10

יב אלא אמר רב מנשיא בר יעקב כגון שעשאו פונדק לשלשה עובדי כוכבים

12 Then you may infer that the halachah agrees with R. Simeon b. Eleazar even in respect to a multitude of Israelites!11

יג רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אפי' תימא לשלשה ישראל מאי טעמא ההוא דנפל מיניה מיאש מימר אמר מכדי איניש אחרינא לא הוה בהדי אלא הני אמרי קמייהו כמה זמני ליהדרו לי ולא הדרו לי והשתא ליהדרו אי דעתייהו לאהדורה אהדרוה ניהלי והאי דלא אהדרוה לי בדעתייהו למיגזלה

13 — But, said R. Manassia b. Jacob, it means e.g., that he had let it as a temporary lodging to three gentiles. R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbahu's name: It may even refer to three Jews.12

יד ואזדא רב נחמן לטעמיה דאמר רב נחמן ראה סלע

14 What then is the reason? It is because the man who lost it despairs thereof, arguing thus: 'Let us see, no other person but these was with me. Now, I have many times mentioned it in their presence so that they should return it to me, but they did not do so. Will they now return it!13 Had they intended to return it, they would have returned it to me,14 hence the reason of their not returning it to me is that they intend stealing it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus in these special circumstances the loser may despair of the return thereof. But normally we do not follow the ruling of R. Simeon in the case of the majority of Israelites. ');">15 Now, R. Nahman follows his general reasoning. For R. Nahman said: If a person sees a sela'

Previous Chapter Next Chapter