בבא מציעא דף כד

ובאושפיזא. מאי נפקא מינה? אמר מר זוטרא: לאהדורי ליה אבידתא בטביעות עינא. אי ידעינן ביה דלא משני אלא בהני תלת – מהדרינן ליה,

And he can lie with regard to a host [ushpiza], as one may say that he was not well received by a certain host to prevent everyone from taking advantage of the host’s hospitality. What is the practical difference that emerges from this statement with regard to matters in which Torah scholars deviate from the truth? Mar Zutra says: The practical difference is with regard to returning a lost item on the basis of visual recognition. If we know about him that he alters his statements only with regard to these three matters, we return the lost item to him, but if he alters his statements with regard to other matters, we do not return the lost item to him.

ואי משני במילי אחריני – לא מהדרינן ליה.

מר זוטרא חסידא אגניב ליה כסא דכספא מאושפיזא. חזיא לההוא בר בי רב דמשי ידיה ונגיב בגלימא דחבריה. אמר: היינו האי דלא איכפת ליה אממונא דחבריה. כפתיה ואודי.

The Gemara relates: A silver goblet was stolen from the host of Mar Zutra Ḥasida. Mar Zutra saw a certain student of Torah who washed his hands and dried them on the cloak of another. Mar Zutra said: This is the one who does not care about the property of another. He bound that student, and the student then confessed that he stole the goblet.

תניא: מודה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר בכלים חדשים ששבעתן העין שחייב להכריז. ואלו הן כלים חדשים שלא שבעתן העין שאינו חייב להכריז, כגון בדי מחטין, וצינוריות,

It is taught in a baraita: Although Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that one does not need to proclaim his finding of anpurya vessels, he concedes that the finder is obligated to proclaim his find of new vessels that the eye of its purchaser has sufficiently seen. And these are new vessels that the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen and concerning which the finder is not obligated to proclaim his find: for example, branches [badei] upon which needles or utensils for spinning are hanging, or strings of axes. When is it permitted for the one who finds all those items that the tanna mentioned in the baraita to keep them? It is when he found them one at a time. But if he found them two at a time, the finder is obligated to proclaim his find.

ומחרוזות של קרדומות. כל אלו שאמרו, אימתי מותרים? בזמן שמצאן אחד אחד, אבל מצאן שנים שנים – חייב להכריז.

מאי ״בדי״? שוכי. ואמאי קרו ליה ״בדי״? דבר דתלו ביה מידי, ״בד״ קרו ליה. כי ההוא דתנן התם: עלה אחד בבד אחד.

The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of the term badei? It means branches. And why did the tanna call them branches? It is because the item upon which one hangs another item [davar detalu bei midei], he calls it a branch, like that which we learned there (Sukka 44b): One leaf on one branch.

וכן היה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר: המציל מן הארי ומן הדוב ומן הנמר ומן הברדלס ומן זוטו של ים ומשלוליתו של נהר, המוצא בסרטיא ופלטיא גדולה,

§ The baraita continues: And likewise, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: In the case of one who rescues a lost item from a lion, or from a bear, or from a leopard, or from a cheetah [bardelas], or from the tide of the sea, or from the flooding of a river; and in the case of one who finds a lost item in a main thoroughfare [seratya] or a large plaza [pelatya], or in any place where the multitudes are found, these items belong to him due to the fact that the owner despairs of their recovery.

ובכל מקום שהרבים מצויין שם – הרי אלו שלו, מפני שהבעלים מתיאשין מהן.

איבעיא להו: כי קאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר – ברוב גוים אבל ברוב ישראל – לא, או דלמא אפילו ברוב ישראל נמי אמר?

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that if one finds a lost item in any place where multitudes are found, the item belongs to him, did he refer only to a place where there is a majority of gentiles; but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, the owner does not despair of recovering the item, because he relies on the Jews to return his item? Or perhaps, even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, he also says that the item belongs to the one who found it.

אם תמצא לומר אפילו ברוב ישראל נמי אמר, פליגי רבנן עליה, או לא פליגי?

And if you say that even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, he also said that the item belongs to the one who found it, do the Rabbis disagree with him or do they not disagree?

ואם תמצא לומר פליגי, ברוב ישראל ודאי פליגי, ברוב גוים פליגי או לא פליגי?

And if you say that the Rabbis disagree with him, in a place where there is a majority of Jews, they certainly disagree. In a place where there is a majority of gentiles, do the Rabbis disagree, or do they not disagree?

ואם תמצא לומר פליגי אפילו ברוב גוים הלכה כמותו או אין הלכה כמותו?

And if you say that the Rabbis disagree with him even in a place where there is a majority of gentiles, is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion?

אם תמצא לומר הלכה כמותו, דוקא ברוב גוים או אפילו ברוב ישראל?

And if you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, does this halakha apply specifically in a place where there is a majority of gentiles, or is the halakha in accordance with his opinion even in a place where there is a majority of Jews?

תא שמע: המוצא מעות בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות, ובכל מקום שהרבים מצויין שם – הרי אלו שלו, מפני שהבעלים מתיאשין מהן. מאן שמעת ליה דאזיל בתר רובא?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: In the case of one who finds coins in synagogues [bevatei khenesiyyot] and study halls or in any place where the multitudes are found, these coins belong to him, due to the fact that the owner despairs of their recovery. Who is the one about whom you heard that he follows the multitudes, i.e., that he attaches significance to the loss of an item in a place where the multitudes are present? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Conclude from the baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that a lost item belongs to the finder even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, as synagogues and study halls are places frequented exclusively by Jews.

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, שמעת מינה אפילו ברוב ישראל נמי.

הכא במאי עסקינן? במפוזרין. אי במפוזרין מאי אריא מקום שהרבים מצויין שם? אפילו אין הרבים מצויין שם!

The Gemara rejects the proof. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the coins are scattered and there is no distinguishing mark on them. The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the coins are scattered, why did the baraita establish the case specifically in a place where the multitudes are found? Even in a place where the multitudes are not found, the coins belong to the finder.

אלא לעולם בצרורין, והכא במאי עסקינן – בבתי כנסיות של גוים, בתי מדרשות מאי איכא למימר? בתי מדרשות דידן דיתבי בהו גוים. השתא דאתית להכי,

Rather, actually the baraita is referring to a case where the coins are bound, and with what are we dealing here? This is a case where the coins were found in the houses of assembly [bevatei khenesiyyot] of gentiles, not in synagogues. That resolves the matter of synagogues; but with regard to study halls, which are exclusive to Jews, what can be said? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to our study halls in which gentile guards or custodians are sitting. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, the batei khenesiyyot in the baraita can be explained as referring to our synagogues, in which gentiles are sitting.

בתי כנסיות נמי דידן דיתבי בהו נכרים.

תא שמע: מצא בה אבידה, אם רוב ישראל – חייב להכריז, אם רוב גוים – אינו חייב להכריז. מאן שמעת ליה דאמר אזלינן בתר רובא?

Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Makhshirin 2:8): In a case when one found a lost item in a city where both Jews and gentiles reside, if the city has a majority of Jews he is obligated to proclaim his find. If there is a majority of gentiles he is not obligated to proclaim his find. Who is the one about whom you heard that he follows the multitudes, i.e., that he attaches significance to the loss of an item in a place where the multitudes are present? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Resolve from this mishna that when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that the item belongs to the finder, it is referring specifically to a place where there is a majority of gentiles, but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, no, it does not belong to the finder.

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, שמעת מינה: כי קאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר ברוב גוים, אבל ברוב ישראל – לא!

מני? רבנן היא, תפשוט מינה דמודו ליה רבנן לרבי שמעון בן אלעזר ברוב גוים.

The Gemara rejects this proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara suggests: In any case, resolve the dilemma from the mishna that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in a place where there is a majority of gentiles.

אלא לעולם רבי שמעון בן אלעזר היא, ואפילו ברוב ישראל נמי. והכא במאי עסקינן? בטמון. אי בטמון, מאי עבידתיה גביה?! והתנן: מצא כלי באשפה,

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Rather, actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and he stated his opinion even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. And with what are we dealing here? This is a case where the found item is concealed. The Gemara asks: If the item is concealed, what is the reason the item is with the finder? Clearly it was placed there and the owner will return to retrieve it. And didn’t we learn in a mishna (25b): In a case where one found a vessel in a garbage dump, if the vessel is concealed he may not touch it, but if it is exposed, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find.

מכוסה – לא יגע בו, מגולה – נוטל ומכריז.

כדאמר רב פפא, באשפה שאינה עשויה לפנות, ונמלך עליה לפנותה. הכא נמי באשפה שאינה עשויה לפנות, ונמלך עליה לפנותה.

The Gemara answers: It can be explained as Rav Pappa says elsewhere, that it is referring to a garbage dump that is not designed to be cleared, and the owner of the land reconsidered and decided to clear it. If one finds concealed vessels he should proclaim his find, because otherwise the vessels will be cleared with the rest of the garbage dump. Here too, the mishna is referring to a garbage dump that is not designed to be cleared, and the owner of the land reconsidered and decided to clear it. If one finds concealed items, his course of action is determined by the identity of the majority of the residents of the city. If they are Jews, he must proclaim his find, and if not, he need not proclaim his find. No proof can be cited to resolve the dilemma.

ואיבעית אימא: לעולם רבנן, מי קתני ״הן שלו״? ״אינו חייב להכריז״ קתני. ויניח, וייתי ישראל ויהיב ביה סימנא ושקיל.

And if you wish, say instead that actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Is it taught in the mishna that the items are his? It is taught that he is not obligated to proclaim his find. He may not keep them, but he shall place the items in his possession and a Jew will come and provide a distinguishing mark to describe the items and take them.

תא שמע, דאמר רב אסי: מצא חבית יין בעיר שרובה גוים – מותרת משום מציאה ואסורה בהנאה. בא ישראל ונתן בה סימן – מותרת בשתיה, למוצאה.

Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Asi says: If one found a barrel of wine in a city whose population has a majority of gentiles, keeping the barrel is permitted in terms of the halakhot of finding lost items because it presumably belonged to a gentile, and deriving benefit from the wine is prohibited, as it is presumed to be wine of a gentile. If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, drinking the wine is permitted for its finder, as it proved to be the wine of a Jew. Nevertheless, it belongs to the finder, because the owner despaired of recovering a barrel misplaced in a public area.

כמאן? כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר. שמע מינה כי קאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר – ברוב גוים אבל ברוב ישראל לא. לעולם אימא לך רבי שמעון בן אלעזר

The Gemara explains the proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement of Rav Asi? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Conclude from it that when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated his opinion, it was only with regard to a place where there is a majority of gentiles; but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, the owner does not despair of recovering his lost item. The Gemara rejects the proof: Actually, I will say to you that even with regard to a place where there is a majority of Jews, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar also stated his opinion, and Rav Asi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in one case, that of a place where there is a majority of gentiles, and disagrees with him in one case, that of a place where there is a majority of Jews.

אפילו ברוב ישראל נמי קאמר, ורב אסי סבר לה כוותיה בחדא, ופליג עליה בחדא.

וכי מאחר דאסירא בהנאה מותרת משום מציאה, למאי הלכתא? אמר רב אשי: לקנקנה.

The Gemara clarifies: And once it was established that deriving benefit from the wine is prohibited, then with regard to the fact that it is permitted in terms of the halakhot of finding lost items, for what matter is that halakha relevant? Rav Ashi said: It is relevant with regard to deriving benefit from its container, which is permitted.

ההוא גברא דאשכח ארבעה זוזי דציירי בסדינא ושדו בנהר בירן, אתא לקמיה דרב יהודה. אמר ליה: זיל אכריז. והא זוטו של ים הוא! שאני נהר בירן,

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who found four dinars that were bound in a cloth and cast into the Biran River. He came before Rav Yehuda and asked how to proceed. Rav Yehuda said: Go proclaim your finding. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it a case of an item lost in the tide of the sea that should therefore belong to the finder? The Gemara answers: The Biran River is different. Since it contains obstacles, the owner does not despair of recovering the lost item. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it a place where the majority of the population is gentiles? Conclude from it that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of gentiles. The Gemara answers: The Biran River is different, as Jews dammed it and Jews dredge it. Since Jews dammed it, say that the coins fell from a Jew, and since Jews dredge it, the owner of the coins does not despair of recovering them.

כיון דמתקיל לא מיאש. והא רובא גוים נינהו, שמע מינה אין הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אפילו ברוב גוים! שאני נהר בירן, דישראל סכרו ליה וישראל כרו ליה.

כיון דישראל סכרו ליה – אימור מישראל נפל, וכיון דישראל כרו ליה – לא מיאש.

רב יהודה הוה שקיל ואזיל בתריה דמר שמואל בשוקא דבי דיסא, אמר ליה: מצא כאן ארנקי, מהו? אמר ליה: הרי אלו שלו.

The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda was moving along behind Mar Shmuel in the market where pounded grain was sold. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: If one found a purse [arnakei] here, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him that the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rav Yehuda asked him: If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: The finder is obligated to return it. Rav Yehuda asked: These are two contradictory rulings. Shmuel said to him: By law, it belongs to him. When I said the finder is obligated to return it if he learns the identity of the owner, that was beyond the letter of the law. This is like that incident where Shmuel’s father found these donkeys in the desert and returned them to their owner after the passage of twelve months of the year, as he acted beyond the letter of the law.

בא ישראל ונתן בה סימן, מהו? אמר ליה: חייב להחזיר. תרתי! אמר ליה: לפנים משורת הדין. כי הא דאבוה דשמואל אשכח הנך חמרי

במדברא ואהדרינהו למרייהו לבתר תריסר ירחי שתא, לפנים משורת הדין.

רבא הוה שקיל ואזיל בתריה דרב נחמן בשוקא דגלדאי, ואמרי לה בשוקא דרבנן, אמר ליה: מצא כאן ארנקי, מהו? אמר ליה: הרי אלו שלו.

The Gemara relates: Rava was moving along behind Rav Naḥman in the tanner’s market, and some say in the marketplace frequented by the Sages. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: If one found a purse here, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman said to him that the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rava asked him: If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman said to him that in this case as well, the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rava asked: But isn’t the owner justifiably standing and screaming that the purse belongs to him? Rav Naḥman said to him: He becomes as one who screams to no avail about his house that collapsed or about his ship that sank in the sea.

בא ישראל ונתן בה סימן, מהו? אמר ליה: הרי אלו שלו. והלא עומד וצווח! נעשה כצווח על ביתו שנפל ועל ספינתו שטבעה בים.

ההוא דיו דשקיל בשרא בשוקא ושדיה בצנייתא דבי בר מריון. אתא לקמיה דאביי, אמר ליה: זיל שקול לנפשך. והא רובא דישראל נינהו,

The Gemara relates: There was a certain kite that took meat in the marketplace and cast it among the palm trees of the house of bar Maryon. The one who found the meat came before Abaye to ask how to proceed. Abaye said to him: Go take it for yourself. The Gemara asks: But isn’t the marketplace of kosher meat a place where there is a majority of Jews? Conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. The Gemara answers: A kite is different, as an item taken by a kite is similar to a lost item swept away in the tide of the sea. The Gemara raises another issue: But doesn’t Rav say: Meat that was obscured from sight and unsupervised for a period of time is forbidden, as its source is unknown? The Gemara answers: This is a case where the finder stands and sees the meat from the moment that it was taken by the kite until it was cast among the trees.

שמעת מינה הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אפילו ברוב ישראל! שאני דיו, דכזוטו של ים דמי. והא אמר רב: בשר שנתעלם מן העין – אסור! בעומד ורואהו.

רבי חנינא מצא גדי שחוט בין טבריא לציפורי והתירוהו לו. אמר רבי אמי: התירוהו לו משום מציאה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר,

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina found a slaughtered young goat between Tiberias and Tzippori and the Sages permitted it to him. Rabbi Ami said: The Sages permitted it to him in terms of the halakhot of finding lost items in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and they permitted it to him in terms of the halakhot of the slaughter of kosher animals, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. As it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one’s young goats and roosters were lost, and the owner went and found them slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda deems the meat forbidden, and Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, deems it permitted.

משום שחיטה כרבי חנניא בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי. דתניא: הרי שאבדו לו גדייו ותרנגוליו, הלך ומצאן שחוטין, רבי יהודה אוסר,

ורבי חנניא בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי מתיר.

אמר רבי: נראין דברי רבי יהודה כשמצאן באשפה, ודברי רבי חנניא בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי כשמצאן בבית. מדהתירוהו לו משום שחיטה, רובא ישראל נינהו,

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in a case where he found the slaughtered animals in a garbage dump, as the concern is that they were thrown away because the slaughter was unfit. And the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct in a case where he found them in the house. The Gemara infers: From the fact that the Sages permitted the meat to him in terms of the halakhot of slaughter, apparently, this place is one where there is a majority of Jews. Conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. Rava said: It is a place where there is a majority of gentiles but the majority of slaughterers are Jews.

שמעת מינה הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אפילו ברוב ישראל! אמר רבא: רוב גוים ורוב טבחי ישראל.

רבי אמי אשכח פרגיות שחוטות בין טבריא לציפורי, אתא לקמיה דרבי אסי, ואמרי לה לקמיה דרבי יוחנן, ואמרי לה בי מדרשא. ואמרו ליה: זיל שקול לנפשך.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami found slaughtered fledglings between Tiberias and Tzippori. He came before Rabbi Asi to ask how to proceed, and some say he came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, and some say he came to the study hall. And they said to him: Go take it for yourself. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa found a skein of thread from which a net was woven. He came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to ask how to proceed, and some say he came to the study hall. And they said to him: Go take it for yourself, because he found it in a place frequented by the multitudes.

רבי יצחק נפחא אשכח קיבורא דאזלי בי אזלויי, אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן, ואמרי לה בבי מדרשא, ואמרו ליה: זיל שקול לנפשך.

מתני׳ ואלו חייב להכריז: מצא פירות בכלי, או כלי כמות שהוא. מעות בכיס, או כיס כמות שהוא. צבורי פירות, צבורי מעות,

MISHNA: And for these found items, one is obligated to proclaim his find: If one found produce inside a vessel, or a vessel by itself; coins inside a pouch, or a pouch by itself; piles of produce; piles of coins,