Bava Metzia 45

דמדרסא ברשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז דלא מדרסא והאלומות בין ברשות הרבים ובין ברה"י נוטל ומכריז כיון דגביהן לא מדרסא

they are trodden on,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the identification mark disappears. ');">¹</span>

ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה במקום כריכות ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו דמינשתפא ברה"י חייב להכריז דלא מינשתפא והאלומות בין ברה"ר ובין ברה"י נוטל ומכריז כיון דיקירי לא מינשתפא

while on private grounds [the finder] has to take them up and announce them because there they are not trodden on. Big sheaves, however, whether [they are found] in a public thoroughfare or on private grounds, [the finder] has to take up and announce because, being raised, one does not tread on them. Raba, again, explains it according to his view — by the place — [and the reason why] small sheaves [found] in a public thoroughfare belong to the finder [is] that they are pushed along,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are moved about by the traffic and do not remain in the place where they were dropped. ');">²</span>

ת"ש ככרות של נחתום הרי אלו שלו הא של בעל הבית חייב להכריז של בעל הבית מאי טעמא כיון דאית בהו סימן דמידע ידיע רפתא דאיניש איניש הוא ולא שנא רשות הרבים ולא שנא רשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז אלמא סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן תיובתא דרבה

while on private grounds [the finder] has to announce them because they are not pushed along.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As there is very little traffic in private premises they remain in the same place. ');">³</span>

אמר לך רבה התם היינו טעמא משום דאין מעבירין על האוכלין והא איכא נכרים נכרים חיישי לכשפים והאיכא בהמה וכלבים באתרא דלא שכיחי בהמה וכלבים

Big sheaves, however, whether [they are found] in a public thoroughfare or on private grounds, [the finder] has to take up and announce because being many they are not pushed along.

לימא כתנאי ר"י אומר כל דבר שיש בו שינוי חייב להכריז כיצד מצא עיגול ובתוכו חרס ככר ובתוכו מעות מכלל דתנא קמא סבר הרי אלו שלו

Come and hear: A BAKER'S LOAVES, [etc.] BELONG TO THE FINDER — but 'home-made loaves have to be announced,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah, infra 25a. ');">⁴</span>

סברוה דכולי עלמא סימן הבא מאיליו הוי סימן ומעבירין על האוכלין מאי לאו בסימן העשוי לידרס קא מיפלגי מר סבר לא הוי סימן ומר סבר הוי סימן

now what is the reason in the case of home-made loaves, obviously that they have an identification mark and one can tell that the bread belongs to this person or that person, and, no matter whether [they are found] in a public thoroughfare or on private grounds, [the finder] has to take them up and announce them. It therefore follows that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is a valid mark, — which is a refutation of Rabbah! — Rabbah will answer you: There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the loaves referred to in the Mishnah. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא אי ס"ד דקא סבר תנא קמא סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן ומעבירין על האוכלין ככרות של בעל הבית ברה"ר אמאי מכריז

the reason is that one may not pass by eatables.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore loaves of bread will not be trodden on but will be picked up as soon as they are noticed. Cf. 'Er. 64b. ');">⁶</span>

אלא אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא דכולי עלמא סברי סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן ומעבירין על האוכלין והכא בסימן הבא מאיליו קא מיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר סימן הבא מאיליו לא הוי סימן ור"י סבר הוי סימן

— But there are heathens?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are not likely to observe the rule laid down by the Rabbis. ');">⁷</span>

ורבה אמר לך דכ"ע סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן ואין מעבירין על האוכלין והכא בסימן הבא מאיליו קמיפלגי ת"ק סבר לא הוי סימן ור"י סבר הוי סימן

Heathens [do not pass by eatables because they] are afraid of witchcraft.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are afraid to tread on eatables in case the eatables are bewitched. ');">⁸</span>

איכא דאמרי סברוה דכ"ע סימן הבא מאיליו הוי סימן וסימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן מאי לאו במעבירין על האוכלין קא מיפלגי דמר סבר מעבירין ומר סבר אין מעבירין

But are there not cattle and dogs? — [The Mishnah speaks] of places where cattle and dogs are not frequent.

אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא אי ס"ד סבר ת"ק סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן ומעבירין על האוכלין ככרות של בעל הבית ברה"ר אמאי מכריז

Are we to maintain that this [difference of opinion between Rabbah and Raba is the same] as [the following difference between] the Tannaim [of our Mishnah]: R. JUDAH SAYS: WHATSOEVER HAS IN IT SOMETHING UNUSUAL MUST BE ANNOUNCED, AS, FOR INSTANCE, IF ONE FINDS A ROUND [OF FIGS] CONTAINING A POTSHERD, OR A LOAF CONTAINING MONEY. This implies that the first Tanna [of the Mishnah] holds that these articles belong to the finder [in spite of their unusual feature].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna (R. Meir in our version of the Mishnah) says distinctly that rounds of figs belong to the finder, and he makes no distinction between those that contain something unusual and those that do not. ');">⁹</span>

אלא אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא דכולי עלמא סברי סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן ומעבירין על האוכלין והכא בסימן הבא מאיליו קא מיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר סימן הבא מאיליו לא הוי סימן ור"י סבר הוי סימן

Now the prevalent opinion was then that all would agree that an identification mark which might have come of itself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a potsherd in a round of figs — which may have got into the round accidentally or may have been put in deliberately. ');">¹⁰</span>

ורבה אמר לך דכולי עלמא סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן ואין מעבירין על האוכלין והכא בסימן הבא מאיליו קא מיפלגי תנא קמא סבר סימן הבא מאיליו לא הוי סימן ור"י סבר הוי סימן

was a valid mark,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is assumed that it was done deliberately, for the purpose of identification. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא כללא דאבידתא כיון דאמר ווי לה לחסרון כיס מיאש ליה מינה

and that one might pass by eatables.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the first Tanna maintains that the mark is of no consequence, as if trodden on it will disappear. ');">¹²</span>

ואמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא הלכתא כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו ברשות היחיד אי דרך נפילה הרי אלו שלו אי דרך הנחה נוטל ומכריז וזה וזה בדבר שאין בו סימן אבל בדבר שיש בו סימן לא שנא ברה"ר ולא שנא ברשות היחיד בין דרך נפילה ובין דרך הנחה חייב להכריז

It must therefore be assumed that [the Tannaim] differ regarding an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on: One holds that it is not a valid mark, and the other holds that it is a valid mark!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna will say that as it is liable to be trodden on and to disappear it is not a valid mark, and R. Judah will say that as long as the mark is there it is valid. ');">¹³</span> — R. Zebid replied in the name of Raba: If you assume that the first Tanna [of the Mishnah] is of the opinion that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid mark, and that one may pass by eatables, why should one have to announce [the finding of] home-made loaves? Therefore R. Zebid said in the name of Raba that all are of the opinion that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is a valid mark,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This accounts for the need of announcing home-made loaves. ');">¹⁴</span> and that one may pass by eatables. but here [in our Mishnah the Tannaim] differ regarding an identification mark which may have, come of itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as money found in home-made loaves. ');">¹⁵</span> the first Tanna being of the opinion that a distinguishing mark which may have come of itself is not a valid mark, and R. Judah being of the opinion that it is a valid mark. Rabbah [on the other hand] will tell you that all agree that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid mark, and that one may not pass by eatables,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which explains the ruling of R. Judah in our Mishnah. ');">¹⁶</span> but that [the Tannaim] differ here regarding a mark which may have come of itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 143. n. 7. ');">¹⁷</span> the first Tanna being of the opinion that it is not a valid mark, and R. Judah being of the opinion that it is a valid mark. Some have another version:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which the difference of opinion between the Rabbis refers to the question whether one may pass by eatables or not. ');">¹⁸</span> The prevalent opinion was then that all would agree that an identification mark which might have come of itself was a valid mark, while an identification mark which was likely to be trodden on was not a valid mark. It must therefore be assumed that [the Tannaim] differ as to whether one may walk on eatables or not, one holding that it is permitted, and the other holding it is not permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir would hold that it is permitted and therefore the mark is not valid, while R. Judah would hold the contrary view. ');">¹⁹</span> — R. Zebid then replied in the name of Raba: If you assume that the first Tanna holds that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid mark, and that one may pass by eatables, why should one have to announce [the finding of] home-made loaves? Therefore R. Zebid said in the name of Raba that all are of the opinion that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is a valid mark, and that one may pass by eatables, but here [in our Mishnah the Tannaim] differ regarding an identification mark which may have come of itself, the first Tanna being of the opinion that an identification mark which may have come of itself is not a valid mark, and R. Judah being of the opinion that it is a valid mark. Rabbah [on the other hand] will tell you that all agree that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid mark, and that one may not pass by eatables, but that [the Tannaim] differ here regarding a mark which may have come of itself, the first Tanna being of the opinion that an identification mark which may have come of itself is not a valid mark, and R. Judah being of the opinion that it is a valid mark. R. Zebid said in the name of Raba: The general principle in regard to a loss is: If [the loser] has said, 'Woe! I have sustained a monetary loss,' he has given it up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the finder is entitled to keep it. ');">²⁰</span> R. Zebid also said in the name of Raba: The law is: Small sheaves, [if found] in a public thoroughfare, belong to the finder; [if found] on private grounds they belong to the finder when [discovered in the position of things] dropped [accidentally], but [if found in the position of things] laid down [deliberately, the finder] has to take them up and announce them. Both [rulings] apply only to a [case where the lost] article has no identification mark, but in a [case where the lost] article has an identification mark it has to be announced irrespective of whether [it has been found in the position of things] dropped [accidentally] or whether [it has been found in the position of things] laid down [deliberately].