Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a

Baba Mezi'a 25a

THREE COINS ON THE TOP OF EACH OTHER, [1] BUNDLES OF SHEAVES IN PRIVATE PREMISES, HOME-MADE LOAVES, FLEECES OF WOOL FROM THE CRAFTSMAN'S WORKSHOP, JARS OF WINE OR JARS OF OIL, THEY HAVE TO BE PROCLAIMED.

GEMARA. Obviously it is only when fruit is found in a vessel, or money in a purse. [that they have to be proclaimed]; but if the fruit is in front of the vessel, or the money in front of the purse, they belong to the finder. Our Mishnah thus teaches the same as our Rabbis taught [in another place]: If one finds fruit [lying] in front of a vessel, or money in front of a purse, they belong to the finder. If [the fruit is] partly in the vessel and partly on the ground, or if [the money is] partly in the purse and partly on the ground, they have to be proclaimed.

But the following contradicts it: If a man found an object lacking an identification mark at the side of an object possessing it, he is bound to proclaim [them]; [2] if the identifier of the mark came and took his own, [3] the other [sc. the finder] is entitled to the object without a mark! — Said R. Zebid: There is no difficulty. The former [Baraitha] refers to a cask and flax; the latter, to a basket and fruit. [4] R. papa said: Both refer to a basket and fruit, yet there is no difficulty. The latter [Baraitha] holds good if something was still left therein; the former, if nothing was left therein. [5] Alternately, both [Baraithas] mean that nothing is left therein, yet there is no difficulty. In the latter, its [sc. the basket's] mouth is turned towards the fruit; in the former, it is not. Another alternative: in both its mouth faces the fruit, yet there is no difficulty. The former [Baraitha] treats of baskets with rims; the latter, of the baskets without. [6]

HEAPS OF FRUIT; HEAPS OF COINS. This proves that number is an identification mark! [7] — [No.] Read: A heap of fruit. [8] Then it proves that place is a means of identification! [No.] Read: HEAPS OF FRUIT. [9]

THREE COINS ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. R. Isaac said: provided that they lie pyramid-wise. [10] It has been taught likewise: If a man finds scattered coins, they belong to him. If they are arranged pyramid-wise he is bound to proclaim them. Now is not this self-contradictory? [First] you state, 'If a man finds scattered coins they belong to him,' thus implying, but if they overlap, [11] he must proclaim them. [12] Then consider the latter clause: 'If they are arranged pyramid-wise, He is bound to proclaim them,' implying, however, that if they merely overlap, they are his? — All [coins] not arranged conically the Tanna designates scattered.

R. Hanina said: This was taught only of [coins of] three kings; [13] but if of one king, he need not proclaim them. How so? If they lie pyramid-wise, then even [if they are] of one king [the proclamation should be made]; if they do not lie pyramid-wise, even if they are of three kings there should be no need [to proclaim them]? — But if stated, it [14] was thus stated: 'This was taught only of [coins of] one king, yet similar to those of three.' [15] How so? When they lie pyramidically, the broadest at the bottom, the medium-sized upon it, and the smallest on top of the middle one; in which case we assume that they were placed thus. If, however, they are of one king, all being of equal size, then even if they are lying upon each other they belong to him [the finder]: we assume that they fell thus together by mere chance. R. Johanan [however] maintained: Even if of the same king, [16] he must proclaim them. [17]

Now, what does he proclaim — the number? [18] Then why particularly three — even if two it should be the same? — Said Rabina: He announces 'coins'. [19]

R. Jeremiah propounded: What if they were disposed in a circle, [20] in a row, triangularly. [21] or ladderwise? [22] — Solve at least one [problem]. For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: Wherever a chip can be inserted [23] whereby they [the coins] may be lifted simultaneously, a proclamation must be made. [24]

R. Ashi propounded:

1. V. Gemara below.
2. E.g.. a purse and money; if the purse is identified, the money too belongs to its owner. This contradicts the Baraitha just quoted.
3. But disclaimed ownership of the other object.
4. The cask is identifiable, but not the flax; similarly the basket and the fruit. Now, had the flax fallen out of the cask, some would have remained therein; hence it is assumed that they were lying together by chance, and so the flax belongs to the finder. Fruit, however, can easily roll out of its basket entirely, and therefore both are assumed to belong to the same person.
5. R. Papa would appear to reject R. Zebid's distinction. Rashi, however, observes that fruit baskets generally had an inside rim, which would prevent ail the fruit from rolling out. In that case, R. Papa and R. Zebid may agree, R. Papa referring to baskets with rims, R. Zebid to rimless ones. In point of fact, whereas Maimonides accepts R. Papa's explanation but rejects R. Zebid's, shewing that he holds them contradictory. Asheri and the Tur accept both.
6. V. n. 3.
7. Since fruit and coins cannot be identified, the only possible distinguishing feature is the number of heaps.
8. I.e., though the Mishnah employs the plural, that is only in a general way; yet the same holds good even of a single heap. In that case, of course, there is no number, the place where it was found being the mark of identification.
9. I.e., though it has just been stated that the plural may be generic, on the other hand it may be particularly used, in which case number is the distinguishing feature. Hence the Mishnah merely proves that either number or place is an identification mark, but not both, and it cannot be shewn which.
10. Conically, a large coin at the bottom, a smaller one above it, and so on. These must have been placed so, and the owner will be able to identify them by the manner of their disposal. — The reason of such disposal might have been that the owner found himself bearing the money on the Sabbath, or on Friday just before the commencement of the Sabbath; v. Shab. 153b.
11. Lying partly on each other and partly on the ground. — Rashi. Jast: but if they lie irregularly, some of them piled, others scattered.
12. Because they would not have fallen, but must have been placed thus.
13. Each coin being of a different reign.
14. The statement of R. Hanina.
15. I.e., of different sizes.
16. I.e., of equal size.
17. Since they are arranged exactly on top of each other.
18. That three coins were found, and the owner identifies them by their arrangement.
19. Without stating a number; two being the smallest possible number of 'coins', it cannot be accepted as a mark of identification; hence the find is not proclaimed for less than three. The translation and explanation follows Asheri, who regards the question as bearing directly on the Mishnah and not on the views of R. Hanina and R. Johanan, as Rashi appears to regard it.
20. Lit., 'like a bracelet'.
21. Lit., 'as a tripod.'
22. The greater part of the middle coin lying on the bottom one, and the greater part of the top coin lying on the middle one.
23. [Adopting reading of some texts; cur. edd.: 'between them'.]
24. For they must have been placed so. Hence a proclamation is necessary if they lay ladderwise.

What if they are arranged as the stones of a Merculis way-mark? [1] — 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. [2]

Our Rabbis taught: If one finds a sela' 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. [3] Moreover, even if his name is written upon it, his claim is still rejected, [4] 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. [5]

MISHNAH. IF A MAN FINDS FLEDGLINGS TIED TOGETHER BEHIND A FENCE OR WALL, OR IN THE PATHWAYS THROUGH FIELDS, HE MUST NOT TOUCH THEM. [6] IF A MAN FINDS A VESSEL IN A DUNGHEAP: IF COVERED UP, HE MUST NOT TOUCH IT; [7] IF UNCOVERED. HE MUST TAKE AND PROCLAIM IT.

GEMARA. What is the reason? [8] — 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! [9] — 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! [10] — 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.

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! [11] — 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; [12] in the case of knives and forks, he must take and proclaim them. [13] 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. [14] 'A dungheap which is regularly cleared away'! — But then it is a voluntary loss? [15] — But it refers to a dungheap which was not regularly cleared away, but he [its owner] decided to clear it out. [16] Now, as for R. papa, it is well; on that account [17] it is stated, 'because it is the nature of a dunghill to be cleared away.' [18] 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. [19]

MISHNAH. IF HE FINDS [AN ARTICLE] AMIDST DEBRIS OR IN AN OLD WALL, [20] 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. [21] BUT IF IT [THE HOUSE] USED TO BE RENTED TO OTHERS, EVEN IF HE FINDS [ARTICLES] IN THE HOUSE ITSELF, THEY BELONG TO HIM.

GEMARA. A Tanna taught: Because he [the finder] can say to him, [22] They belonged to Amorites. [23] Do then only Amorites hide objects. and not Israelites? [24] — This holds good only

1. 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'.
2. [The Baraitha has in mind the trilithon or dolmen erected in front of the image.]
3. Lit., 'he has said nothing'.
4. V. last note.
5. Lit., 'it fell from another person.'
6. These places are semi-guarded, and therefore the birds may have been placed there, as explained in the Gemara.
7. Because the covering shews that it was placed there.
8. For the first ruling in the case of the fledglings.
9. The owner can say where they were tied together.
10. Since the owner has no means of identifying them.
11. 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.
12. These are too large to have been thrown there inadvertently.
13. Because they may have been thrown there by accident.
14. In the former case the finder must take and proclaim them; in the latter, he must not touch them.
15. Why then proclaim them?
16. V. supra p. 151.
17. Sc. the distinction he draws.
18. I.e., at any time.
19. Hence a knife or fork (v. p. 159 n. 8) must be taken and proclaimed.
20. These had cavities in which the objects could be placed.
21. 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.
22. The owner of the ruins or the old wall.
23. I.e., to one of the races that formerly inhabited Palestine.
24. Surely if the article is in the inner half of the cavity, nearer the house, it should belong to the owner of the house.