Bava Metzia 54

לאהדורי גט אשה בסימנים אי אמרת דאוריית' מהדרינן ואי אמרת דרבנן כי עבוד רבנן תקנתא בממונא אבל באיסורא לא עבוד רבנן תקנתא

In respect of returning a woman's divorce on the strength of identification marks:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a messenger was sent with a divorce but lost it before delivery. Subsequently a divorce was found, and the messenger identified it by means of certain marks therein. ');">¹</span>

ת"ש אף השמלה היתה בכלל כל אלו ולמה יצאת להקיש אליה ולומר לך מה שמלה מיוחדת שיש לה סימנין ויש לה תובעין חייב להכריז אף כל דבר שיש לו סימנין ויש לו תובעין חייב להכריז תנא תובעין אצטריכא ליה סימנין כדי נסבא

should you say that they are Biblically [valid], we return it; but if only by Rabbinical law the Rabbis enacted this measure for civil matters only, not for ritual prohibitions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a general principle that the Rabbis could freely enact measures affecting civil matters, since they had the power to abrogate individual rights of property under certain conditions. But they could not nullify ritual prohibitions. Hence, if identification marks are Scripturally valid, the divorce is returned to the messenger, who proceeds to divorce the woman therewith. But if they have no Scriptural force, the Rabbis could not institute a measure to free her from her marriage bonds which was not sanctioned by the Bible. ');">²</span>

ת"ש חמור בסימני אוכף אימא בעדי אוכף

— Come and hear: NOW, THE GARMENT TOO WAS INCLUDED IN ALL THESE. WHY THEN WAS IT SINGLED OUT? 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',' Thus it is explicitly stated that the validity of identification marks is deduced from Scripture, hence Biblical. ');">³</span>

ת"ש (דברים כב, ב) והיה עמך עד דרוש אחיך אותו וכי תעלה על דעתך שיתננו לו קודם שידרשנו אלא דרשהו אם רמאי הוא או אינו רמאי

— The Tanna really desires [to teach] that there must be a claimant; identification marks are mentioned only incidentally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it may be that 'garment' teaches only that ownership must be claimed. Since, however, it is a fact that it can be claimed on the strength of identification marks, the Tanna mentions these too, even if their validity is only Rabbinical. ');">⁴</span>

מאי לאו בסימנין לא בעדים

Come and hear: [Therefore Scripture wrote 'ass,' to shew that even] the ass [too is returned] in virtue of the identification marks of its saddle!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 170, n. 6. ');">⁵</span>

ת"ש אין מעידין אלא על פרצוף הפנים עם החוטם אע"פ שיש סימנין בגופו ובכליו

— Read: in virtue of the witnesses [attesting to the ownership] of its saddle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if only the ownership of the saddle is attested, the ass too is returned: that is deduced from the verse. ');">⁶</span>

שמע מינה סימנין לאו דאורייתא אמרי גופו דארוך וגוץ כליו דחיישינן לשאלה

Come and hear: <i>And it</i> [sc. the article found] <i>shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it [and thou shalt return it to him]</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 2. ');">⁷</span>

אי חיישינן לשאלה חמור בסימני אוכף היכי מהדרינן אמרי אוכף לא שאולי אינשי אוכפא משום דמסקב ליה לחמרא

now, would it then have occurred to thee that he should return it to him before he sought after it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! Then why state it? ');">⁸</span>

איבעית אימא כליו בחיורי ובסומקי

But [it means this:] examine him [the claimant], whether he be a fraud or not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Translating: until thy brother's examination — i.e., until thou hast examined thy brother — in respect thereof. — Darash, besides meaning 'to seek', also connotes 'to make judicial investigation'; cf. Deut. XIII, 15: Then shalt thou (judicially) enquire (we-darashta). ');">⁹</span>

אלא הא דתניא מצאו קשור בכיס או בארנקי ובטבעת או שמצאו בין כליו אפילו לזמן מרובה כשר ואי ס"ד חיישינן לשאלה כי מצאו קשור בכיס אמאי כשר ניחוש לשאלה

Surely that is by means of identification marks!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that they are Biblically valid. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמרי כיס וארנקי וטבעת לא משאלי אינשי כיס וארנקי משום דמסמני וטבעת משום דמזייף

— No: by means of witnesses. Come and hear: Testimony<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To free a widow for marriage. ');">¹¹</span>

לימא כתנאי אין מעידין על השומא ואלעזר בן מהבאי אומר מעידין על השומא מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דת"ק סבר סימנין דרבנן ואלעזר בן מהבאי סבר סימנין דאורייתא

may be given<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the identity of a corpse. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רבא דכ"ע סימנין דאורייתא והכא בשומא מצויה בבן גילו קמיפלגי מר סבר שומא מצויה בבן גילו ומ"ס שומא אינה מצויה בבן גילו

only on proof [afforded by] the face with the nose, even if the body and the garment bear identification marks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 120a. ');">¹³</span>

איבעית אימא דכ"ע שומא אינה מצויה בבן גילו והכא בסימנין העשוין להשתנות לאחר מיתה קמיפלגי מר סבר סימנין עשוים להשתנות לאחר מיתה ומר סבר סימנין אין עשוים להשתנות לאחר מיתה

This proves that identification marks are not Biblically valid! — I will tell you: In respect to the body, [the proposed identification marks were] that it was short or long;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are naturally rejected, since many people are short or long. But it may well be that others are accepted. ');">¹⁴</span>

אב"א דכ"ע שומא אינה עשויה להשתנות לאחר מיתה וסימנין דרבנן והכא בשומא סימן מובהק הוא קמיפלגי מ"ס שומא סימן מובהק הוא ומ"ס שומא לאו סימן מובהק הוא

whilst those of his garments [are rejected] because we fear borrowing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Granted that the ownership of the garments is established, that does not prove the identity of the corpse, as they might have been borrowed. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רבא את"ל סימנין לאו דאורייתא היכי מהדרינן אבידתא בסימנין דניחא ליה למוצא אבידה דנהדר בסימנין כי היכי דכי אבדה ליה לדידיה נמי נהדרו ליה בסימנין

But if we fear borrowing, why is an ass returned because of the identification of the saddle? — I will tell you: people do not borrow a saddle, because it chafes the ass ['s back].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A saddle must fit its particular ass. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר ליה רב ספרא לרבא וכי אדם עושה טובה לעצמו בממון שאינו שלו

Alternatively, the garments [were identified] through being white or red.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 4, [MS.M. omits this passage, and rightly so, seeing that it assumes that we do not fear borrowing, which would make the question that follows closely on irrelevant; v. n. 10.] ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא ניחא ליה לבעל אבידה למיהב סימנין ולמשקליה מידע ידע דעדים לית ליה ומימר אמר כולי עלמא לא ידעי סימנין מובהקים דידה ואנא יהיבנא סימנין מובהקים דידה ושקלנא לה

Then what of that which was taught: If he found it tied up in a purse, money bag, or to a ring, or if he found it amongst his [household] utensils, even a long time afterwards, it is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 27b. If a messenger loses a bill of divorce, and then finds one in the places mentioned, it is valid, and we do not fear that it might be a different document written for another husband and wife with identical names. A bill of divorce had to be written specifically for the woman it was intended to free. ');">¹⁸</span>

אלא הא דתנן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אחד הלוה משלשה יחזיר ללוה שלשה שלוו מן האחד יחזיר למלוה ניחא ליה ללוה לאהדורי ליה למלוה

Now should you think, we fear borrowing: if he found it tied up in his purse [etc.], why is it valid? Let us fear borrowing! — I will tell you: A purse, wallet, and signet ring are not lent: a purse and a money bag, because people are superstitious about it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Believing it unlucky to lend them(Jast.). ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר ליה התם סברא הוא אחד הלוה משלשה יחזיר ללוה דגבי לוה שכיחי גבי מלוה לא שכיחי ש"מ מלוה נפול שלשה שלוו מאחד יחזור למלוה דגבי מלוה שכיחי גבי לוה לא שכיחי

a signet ring, because one can commit forgery therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. adds here the passage it omits above, v. n. 7.] ');">²⁰</span> Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? [For it was taught:] Testimony may not be given<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the identity of a corpse. ');">¹²</span> on the strength of a mole; but Eleazar b. Mahabai said: Testimony may be so given.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 120a. ');">²¹</span> Surely then they differ in this: The first Tanna holds that identification marks are [only] Rabbinically valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore they cannot establish identity to break the marriage bond. Cf. p. 169, n. 1. ');">²²</span> whilst Eleazar b. Mahabai holds that they are Biblically valid? — Said Raba: All may agree that they are Biblically valid: they differ here as to whether a mole is to be found on one's affinity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a person born at the same hour and under the same planetary influence. ');">²³</span> One Master maintains that a mole is [generally] found on a person's affinity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it cannot establish identity. ');">²⁴</span> whilst the other holds that it is not. Alternatively, all agree that it is not; they differ here as to whether identification marks<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Yeb, 120a, where this discussion is repeated, the text reads 'mole'. ');">²⁵</span> are liable to change after death. One Master maintains: Identification marks are liable to change after death;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore they cannot establish identity. ');">²⁶</span> the other, that they are not. Alternatively, all agree that a mole is not liable to change after death, and identification marks are valid only by Rabbinical law; they differ here as to whether a mole is a perfect mark of identification. One Master maintains that a mole is a perfect mark of identification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which leaves no doubt whatsoever. Even if identification marks in general are only Rabbinically valid, that is when they are not absolutely perfect; but if they are, they certainly have Biblical force. ');">²⁷</span> whilst the other holds that it is not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus so far the problem remains unsolved. ');">²⁸</span> Raba said: If you should resolve that identification marks are not Biblically valid, why do we return a lost article in reliance on these marks?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., why did the Rabbis give them validity for this purpose? ');">²⁹</span> Because one who finds a lost article is pleased that it should be returned on the strength of identification marks, so that should he lose anything, it will likewise be returned to him through marks of identification. Said R. Safra to Raba: Can then one confer a benefit upon himself with money that does not belong to him! But [the reason is this:] the loser himself is pleased to offer identification marks and take it back.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The text is difficult and hardly intelligible as it stands. Read with some versions: 'The loser himself is pleased that it should be returned (to any claimant) on the strength of identification marks.'] ');">³⁰</span> He knows full well that he has no witnesses; therefore he argues to himself, 'Everyone does not know its perfect identification marks,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if others have seen and can generally describe it, they cannot give a minute and detailed description. [R. Safra employs the term 'perfect identification marks' ([H]) in a loose sense, as any identification mark in general is valid for the recovery of a lost article; cf. also infra p. 177. n. 4. V. R. Nissim, Hiddushim, a.l.] ');">³¹</span> but I can state its perfect identification marks and take it back.' But what of that which we learnt: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If it was one man who had borrowed from three, he [the finder] must return [them] to the debtor; if three had borrowed from one, he must return them to the creditor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 20a, Mishnah. ');">³²</span> Is then the debtor pleased that it [the promissory note] is returned to the creditor? — In that instance, he replied to him, it is a matter of logic. If it was one man who had borrowed from three, he must return [them] to the debtor, because they are to be found [together] in the debtor's possession, but not in the creditor's:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there are three separate creditors. ');">³³</span> hence the debtor must have dropped it. If three had borrowed from one, it must be returned to the creditor, because they are to be found in the creditor's possession, but not in the debtor's.