Bava Metzia 53

בלוקח מן התגר אבל בלוקח מבעל הבית חייב להחזיר וכן תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן ל"ש אלא בלוקח מן התגר אבל בלוקח מבעל הבית חייב להחזיר

to one who purchases from a merchant;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who himself buys from many people, so that the original ownership cannot be traced. ');">¹</span>

א"ל רב נחמן וכי בעל הבית בעצמו דשן א"ל איסמיה א"ל לא תתרגם מתני' כגון שדשן ע"י עבדו ושפחתו הכנענים:

but if one buys from a private individual, he is bound to return [the coins].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Private individual' means one who grows his own produce. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אף השמלה היתה בכלל כל אלו ולמה יצאת להקיש אליה לומר לך מה שמלה מיוחדת שיש בה סימנין ויש לה תובעין אף כל דבר שיש בו סימנין ויש לו תובעים חייב להכריז:

And a tanna recited likewise before R. Nahman: This refers only to one who purchases from a merchant: but if from a private individual, he is bound to return [the coins]. Thereupon R. Nahman observed to him: 'Did then the private individual thresh [the grain] himself?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The money might have been lost by one of his workmen. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי בכלל כל אלו אמר רבא בכלל (דברים כב, ג) כל אבדת אחיך

'Shall I then delete it?' he enquired. — 'No,' he replied; 'interpret the teaching of one who threshed [the grain] by his heathen slaves and bondswomen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These have no rights of ownership, and even if they lost the money, it still belongs to their master. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבא למה לי דכתב רחמנא שור חמור שה ושמלה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. NOW, THE GARMENT TOO WAS INCLUDED IN ALL THESE: WHY THEN WAS IT SINGLED OUT?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'did it go forth.' ');">⁵</span>

צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא שמלה הוה אמינא ה"מ בעדים דגופה וסימנין דגופה אבל חמור בעדים דאוכף וסימנין דאוכף אימא לא מהדרינן ליה כתב רחמנא חמור דאפילו חמור בסימני האוכף

THAT AN ANALOGY MIGHT BE DRAWN THEREWITH, TEACHING: JUST AS A GARMENT IS DISTINGUISHED IN THAT IT BEARS IDENTIFICATION MARKS AND IS CLAIMED, SO MUST EVERYTHING BE ANNOUNCED, IF IT BEARS IDENTIFICATION MARKS AND IS CLAIMED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it has claimants'. The last phrase excludes articles which the owner has abandoned. — The whole Mishnah is explained in the Gemara. ');">⁶</span>

שור ושה דכתב רחמנא ל"ל שור דאפילו לגיזת זנבו ושה לגיזותיו ולכתוב רחמנא שור דאפילו לגיזת זנבו וכ"ש שה לגיזותיו

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is meant by IN ALL THESE? — Said Raba: In the general phrase, [and in like manner shalt thou do] with every lost article of thy brother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 3. — The 'singling out' of a garment is in the same verse: and in like manner shalt thou do with his garment. ');">⁷</span>

אלא אמר רבא חמור דבור לרבי יהודה ושה דאבידה לדברי הכל קשיא

Raba said: Why should the Divine Law have enumerated ox, ass, sheep and garment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case return them unto thy brother&nbsp;… In like manner shalt thou do with his ass, and so shalt thou do with his garment. — Ibid. 1, 3. ');">⁸</span>

ואימא לגללים הוא דאתא גללים אפקורי מפקר להו ודילמא לסימנין הוא דאתא דאיבעיא לן סימנין דאורייתא או דרבנן כתב רחמנא שה דאפילו בסימנין מהדרינן וסימנין דאורייתא

They are all necessary. For had the Divine Law mentioned 'garment' alone, I would have thought: That is only if the object itself can be attested, or the object itself bears marks of identification. But in the case of an ass, if its saddle is attested or its saddle bears marks of identification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not the ass itself. ');">⁹</span>

אמרי מדקתני להו תנא לסימנין גבי שמלה דקתני מה שמלה מיוחדת שיש בה סימנין ויש לה תובעין חייב להכריז אף כל דבר שיש בו סימנין ויש לו תובעין חייב להכריז ש"מ דשה לאו לסימנין הוא דאתא:

I might think that it is not returned to him. Therefore the Divine Law wrote 'ass,' to shew that even the ass [too is returned] in virtue of the identification of its saddle. For what purpose did the Divine Law mention 'ox' and 'sheep'?' — 'Ox', that even the shearing of its tail, and 'sheep', that even its shearings [must be returned].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the finder had occasion to shear these animals while in his Possession. ');">¹⁰</span>

תנו רבנן (דברים כב, ג) אשר תאבד פרט לאבידה שאין בה שוה פרוטה רבי יהודה אומר ומצאתה פרט לאבידה שאין בה שוה פרוטה

Then the Divine Law should have mentioned 'ox', to shew that even the shearing of its tail [must be returned], from which the shearings of a sheep would follow <i>a fortiori</i>? — But, said Raba, 'ass,' mentioned in connection with a pit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 33: And if a man shall open a pit&nbsp;… and on ox or an ass fall therein. ');">¹¹</span>

מאי בינייהו אמר אביי משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו מר נפקא ליה מאשר תאבד ומר נפקא ליה מומצאתה

on R. Judah's view, and 'sheep' in connection with a lost article, on all views, are [unanswerable] difficulties.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 54a. The Rabbis maintain that the maker of the pit is not responsible if a man or utensils fall therein, interpreting, 'ox,' but not man, 'ass,' but not utensils. R. Judah, however, maintains that he is responsible for utensils: hence the difficulty, why mention 'ass?' ');">¹²</span>

ולמאן דנפקא ליה מאשר תאבד האי ומצאתה מאי עביד ליה

But why not assume that it comes [to teach] that the dung [too must be returned]? — [The ownership of] dung is renounced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it need not be returned. ');">¹³</span>

ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרבנאי דאמר רבנאי ומצאתה דאתאי לידיה משמע

But perhaps its purpose is to teach the law of identification marks? For it is a problem to us whether identification marks are Biblically valid [as a means of proving ownership] or only by Rabbinical law; therefore Scripture wrote 'sheep' to shew that it must be returned even on the strength of identification marks, thus proving that these are Biblically valid. — I will tell you: since the Tanna refers to identification marks in connection with 'garment', for he teaches, JUST AS A GARMENT IS DISTINGUISHED IN THAT IT BEARS IDENTIFICATION MARKS AND IS CLAIMED, SO MUST EVERYTHING BE ANNOUNCED, IF IT BEARS IDENTIFICATION MARKS AND IS CLAIMED, it follows that the purpose of 'sheep' is not to teach the validity of identification marks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is stated below that the Tanna may have mentioned identification marks in connection with 'garment' casually, yet that is sufficient to prove that in his opinion the purpose of 'sheep' is certainly not to prove their validity. ');">¹⁴</span>

ולמאן דנפקא ליה מומצאתה האי אשר תאבד מאי עביד ליה

Our Rabbis taught: [<i>And so shalt thou do with all lost things of thy brother's] which shall be lost to him</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Literal rendering of Deut. XXII, 3. (E.V.: which he hath lost.) ');">¹⁵</span>

מבעי ליה לכדרבי יוחנן דאמר רבי יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יוחאי מניין לאבידה ששטפה נהר שהיא מותרת שנאמר כן תעשה לכל אבדת אחיך אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה מי שאבודה הימנו ומצויה אצל כל אדם יצתה זו שאבודה הימנו ואינה מצויה אצל כל אדם

— this excludes a lost article worth less than a <i>perutah</i>. R. Judah said: <i>And thou hast found it</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁶</span>

ואידך הא דרבנאי מנא ליה נפקא ליה מומצאתה

— this excludes a lost article worth less than a <i>perutah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That which is not worth a perutah is neither a loss nor a find. ');">¹⁷</span>

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. ');">¹⁸</span>

רבא אמר פרוטה שהוזלה איכא בינייהו מ"ד מאשר תאבד איכא ומ"ד מומצאתה ליכא

Now, he who derives it from, 'which shall be lost to him,' how does he employ, <i>'and thou hast found it</i>?' — He requires it for Rabbanai's dictum. For Rabbanai said: <i>And thou hast found it</i> implies even if it has come into his possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hand.' V: supra. p. 2. ');">¹⁹</span>

ולמ"ד אשר תאבד הא בעינן ומצאתה וליכא

Now, he who deduces it from, <i>'and thou hast found it</i>,' how does he utilize, 'which shall be lost to him?' — He needs it for R. Johanan's dictum. For R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Var. lec., 'b. Jehozadak,' v. supra p. 139. n. 4.] ');">²⁰</span>

אלא פרוטה שהוקרה איכא בינייהו מאן דאמר ומצאתה איכא ומאן דאמר אשר תאבד ליכא

Whence do we know that a lost article swept away by a river is permitted [to the finder]? From the verse, <i>'And so shalt thou do with all the lost things of thy brother which shall be lost to him and thou hast found it'</i>: [this implies.] that which is lost to him but is available<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'found.' ');">²¹</span>

ולמאן דאמר ומצאתה הא בעינן אשר תאבד וליכא

to others in general, thus excluding that which is lost to him and is not available to others. And the other, whence does he infer Rabbanai's dictum? — He derives it from, and thou hast found it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H] in the perfect following the imperfect [H] is taken to denote the pluperfect.] ');">²²</span>

אלא פרוטה שהוקרה והוזלה וחזרה והוקרה איכא בינייהו מאן דאמר אשר תאבד איכא ומאן דאמר ומצאתה בעינן דאית בה שיעור מציאה משעת אבידה ועד שעת מציאה:

And the other, whence does he know R. Johanan's dictum? — From, [which shall be lost] to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas his own deduction that the law applies only to a loss worth a perutah, is from 'lost.' ');">²³</span>

איבעיא להו סימנין דאורייתא או דרבנן מאי נפקא מינה

And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What does he derive from, 'to (from) him'? ');">²⁴</span> — In his opinion, to him has no particular significance. Raba said: They differ in respect of [a loss worth] a <i>perutah</i>, which [subsequently] depreciated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when lost it was worth a perutah, but not when found. ');">²⁵</span> On the view that it is derived from, 'which shall be lost to him,' there is [the loss of a <i>perutah</i>]; but according to him who deduces it from, 'and thou hast found it,' there is not [a find of a <i>perutah</i>]. Now, he who emphasizes, 'which shall be lost' — surely, 'and thou hast found it,' must also be applicable, which is not [the case here]! — But they differ in respect of [an article now worth] a <i>perutah</i>, having appreciated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When lost, it was not worth a perutah, but its value had increased to a perutah by the time it was found. ');">²⁶</span> On the view that it is deduced from, 'and thou hast found it,' there is [the find of a <i>perutah</i>]; whereas according to him who deduces it from, 'which shall be lost,' there is not [the loss of a <i>perutah</i>]. Now, he who emphasizes, 'and thou host found it' — surely, 'which shall be lost,' must also be applicable, which is not [the case here]! — But they differ in respect of [an article worth] a <i>perutah</i>, which fell and then rose in value again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When lost, it was worth a perutah; then its value fell, but when found it was again worth a perutah. ');">²⁷</span> On the view that it is derived from, 'which shall be lost.' there is [the loss of a <i>perutah</i>]; but according to the opinion that it is inferred from, 'and thou host found it,' it must have had the standard of a 'find' from the time of being lost until found. The scholars propounded: Are identification marks [legally valid] by Biblical or merely by Rabbinical law? What is the practical difference? —