[We are now half-way down p. 23a.]

[Very often during a debate between two Amoraim, we find the suggestion "leima ka-tannai", i.e. can we not say (that the present debate) reflects a difference of opinion between Tannaim, i.e. Sages of the mishnaic period. In addition to clarifying the opinions of their predecessors, this procedure had practical utility. If it could be shown that one of the participants in the debate represents the majority tannaitic view, or that of a tanna with a higher priority than of his adversary, his opinion was more likely to be adopted as halakhah.]

Leima ka-tannai. [In the present instance, our own Mishnah is cited:] R. Yehuda says: Anything that has something unusual about it must be announced. What is an example? If one found a round cake (of figs) with a pottery shard in it or a loaf of bread with coins in it". It follows that the _first tanna_ (who listed the objects that can be kept by the finder) held that (these two items) do not have to be announced (either).

[In the version of the Mishnah that appears in the Babylonian Talmud, the _first tanna_ is identified as R. Meir, in the Yerushalmi, the sentence "these are the words of R. Meir" is missing, whereas in the standard Mishnayot, it is in parenthesis.]

It has been suggested that everyone (both the _first tanna_ and R. Yehudah) agrees that a mark that entered (the lost object) inadvertantly can (still) serve as an identification mark (requiring the finder to announce it) [Rashi: Because the finder cannot know that it was not put there deliberately], and that people tend to pass by food (lying in the road, so that it will remain there long enough to be trampled).

Doesn't it follow that the dispute was about a mark that tends to be trampled? One master (the _first tanna_, perhaps R. Meir) held that it is not a (legitimate) identification mark and one master (R. Yehudah) held that it is an identification mark. [And, if so, why don't Rabba and Rava cite the tannaitic dispute?]

[This argument identifies Rabba's opinion with that of the _first tanna_ and Rava's opinion with that of R. Yehudah, raising another problem: In disputes between R. Yehudah and R. Meir, the former has higher priority, but - as the _first tanna's_ opinion was not challenged by anyone other than R. Yehudah, it may well be that the latter is expessing a minority opinion, whereas the _first tanna_ - whether or not he is R. Meir - is expressing the view of the majority. Fortunately, this issue can be avoided.]

Rav Zevid said, citing Rava: If it enters your mind that the _first tanna_ held that a mark that tends to be trampled is not an identification mark and that people tend to pass over food, why (in the opinion of the _first tanna_) does (the finder have to) announce home-baked loaves? [Thus, this interpretation of the dispute is untenable.]

[The gemara will now present two other interpretations of the dispute, the first consistent with Rava and the second consistent with Rabba.]

Rather, said Rav Zevid citing Rava, everyone (both the _first tanna_ and R. Yehudah) held [like Rava in his debate with Rabba] that a mark that tends to be trampled is an identification mark, and that [unlike Rabba] people _do_ tend to pass by food. They differed over whether a mark that came inadvertently is a (legitimate) identification mark. The _first tanna_ was of the opinion that it is not an identification mark and R. Yehudah was of the opinion that it is.

Rabba would say to you: Everyone (both the _first tanna_ and R. Yehudah) held [like Rabba] that a mark that tends to be trampled is _not_ a (legitimate) identification mark, and that people _do not_ pass by food (lying in the road, so it is not likely to be trampled). They differed over whether a mark that came inadvertantly is a (legitimate) identification mark. The _first tanna_ was of the opinion that it is not an identification mark and R. Yehudah was of the opinion that it is.

[The gemara thus rejects the suggestion that the debate between Rabba and Rava reflects the earlier difference of opinion between R. Yehudah and the _first tanna_ (R. Meir?). The dispute between Rabba and Rava remains unresolved.]

There are some who learn (this section) differently: It has been suggested that everyone (both the _first tanna_ and R. Yehudah) agrees that a mark that entered (the lost object) inadvertently can (still) serve as an identification mark and (like Rabba and against Rava) that a mark that tends to be trampled in not an identification mark. Doesn't it follow that that the dispute was about whether people tend to pass by food (lying in the road, so that it will remain there long enough to be trampled)? One master (the _first tanna_, perhaps R. Meir) held that they do tend to pass over food, and one master (R. Yehudah) held that they do not (so that such a mark would not be trampled out of recognition).

[According to this version, both tannaim agree with Rabba on the main issue - a mark that tends to be trampled - and the dispute is about a secondary point raised in support of Rabba.]

[The remainder is almost - but not quite - the same as before] Rav Zevid said, citing Rava: If it enters your mind that the _first tanna_ held that a mark that tends to be trampled is _not_ an identification mark and that people tend to pass over food, why (in the opinion of the _frst tanna_) does (the finder have to) announce home-baked loaves? Rather, said Rav Zevid citing Rava, everyone (both the _first tanna_ and R. Yehudah) held [like Rava in his debate with Rabba] that a mark that tends to be trampled is an identification mark, and that [unlike Rabba] people _do_ tend to pass by food. They differed over whether a mark that came inadvertantly is a (legitimate) identification mark. The _first tanna_ was of the opinion that it is not an identification mark and R. Yehudah was of the opinion that it is.

Rabba would say to you: Everyone (both the _first tanna_ and R. Yehudah) held [like Rabba] that a mark that tends to be trampled is _not_ a (legitimate) identification mark, and that people _do not_ pass by food (lying in the road, so it is not likely to be trampled). They differed over whether a mark that came inadvertantly is a (legitimate) identification mark. The _first tanna_ was of the opinion that it is not an identifying mark and R. Yehudah was of the opinion that it is.

[In this version too the gemara rejects the analogy between the debate between Rabba and Rava and the earlier difference of opinion between R. Yehudah and the _first tanna_ (R. Meir?)]

[Although the dispute between Rabba and Rava is unresolved, halakha has to be pronounced. It is a rule that in an unresolved dispute between an Amora of an earlier generation and one of a later generation - beginning with that of Abbaye and Rava, halakhah is fixed according to the later Amora].

Rav Zevid said citing Rava: The general rule concerning lost objects is: as soon as [the owner who lost the object] says, "Woe is me for my loss of money", he is presumed to have despaired of it. And Rav Zevid (also) said, citing Rava: The halakhah is is that small sheaves found in a public place are the finder's; in the private domain, if they appear to have fallen they are the finders [Rashi: Since the loser cannot identify them by location]; (however,) if they appear to have been placed (where they were found) they must be taken and announced [Rashi: Otherwise a gentile might take them (and not feel obliged to find the owner) or the owner may have forgotten them]. Both (of these rulings) apply to the case when there is no identifying mark, but if there is an identifying mark, it makes no difference whether (the object was found) in a public place or in the private domain, or whether it appeared to have been dropped or placed (where they were found) - he must announce (that he has found them).

[We have now reached the bottom om BM 23a]

Return to the Talmud page.