Return to the Talmud page.
bm 24a.1: Refining R. Shimon b. Elazar's position
We begin 9 lines from the top of Bava Metzia 24a. We have been discussing R. Shimon B. Elazar's ruling (in the mishna) that anporya vessels do not have to be announced.
We learned in a b'raita: R. Shimon b. Elazar agrees that, with new items with which the owner has not yet become familiar, one does not have to announce [the finding]. And these are new items that are not yet familiar, such as "badim" of needles and spinning forks [Rashi defines these as small forks used for spinning gold threads] and strings of axes [i.e., axes tied together and displayed for sale]. [Presumably, these items are unfamiliar to the owner either because they are too small (the needles), too similar (the axes), or perhaps because they are for retail sale.]
All these that were mentioned, when can they be kept [without announcement]? When they were found one at a time. But if they were found in pairs, they do have to be announced [since the number of items can be an identifying mark].
The gemara interrupts the b'raita text with a question: What are "badim?" Branches [as of a tree]. And why are they [the "badim" on which needles are hung] called badim? Anything on which people hang things is called a "bad." As we learned there [the tractate of Sukkah, discussing the willow branch used on Hoshana Rabba, which requires at least] one leaf on one "bad."
Back to the b'raita: Similarly, R. Shimon b. Elazar would say "A person who saves something from a lion, or from a bear, or from a leopard or from a "bardelis" [often translated as a hyena or a panther. (In modern Hebrew, "bardelis"=cheetah.)] or washed up from the tide of the sea, or from the shallows of a river is permitted to keep it. [The biblical proof-text for items washed out to sea were presented on page 22b. R. Shimon b. Elazar is extending this to a general principle of anything which would ordinarily be beyond recovery, and could therefore be regarded as abandoned by its owner.
[The b'raita continues [citing R.Shimon ben Elazar]: One who finds an item in a large road or public plaza or in any place in which many people are likely to be, these belong to the finder, because the owners despair [i.e., give up hope of recovery].
We are now 24 lines from the top of 24a.
[R. Shimon b. Elazar's position is that you may keep an item found in an area frequented by many people. The gemara will now try to define the scope of his ruling with five questions.]
Question 1: They asked: When R. Shimon b. Elazar stated [his position, was he referring to a place with] a majority of Canaanites, but [in a place with] a majority of Jews, no [the finder would not be able to keep it], or perhaps even where the majority was Jewish he also said [that the finder could keep the item]?
[If the majority is Canaanite, the original owner, whether Canaanite of Jewish, might well despair of recovery on the grounds that a Canaanite finder will not be expected to return it. Or perhaps even if the majority is Jewish, the large number of potential finders increases the probability that the finder will be dishonest and will not announce the finding, so that the owner immediately gives up hope of recovery.]
Question 2: And if you will say [that R. Shimon b. Elazar's statement applies] even with a Jewish majority, do the rabbis disagree with him [and require an announcement] or do they not disagree with him [i.e., do they agree that no annoucement is required]?
Question 3: And if you will say that the rabbis _do_ disagree with him, they certainly disagree where the majority in Jewish [and say that an announcement _is_ required], but do they disagree when the majority is Canaanite?
Question 4: And if you will say that they [the rabbis] disagree even if the majority is Canaanite, does the halakha follow R. Shimon b. Elazar or not?
Question 5: If you will say that the halakha follows [R. Shimon b. Elazar], is it only in the case of a Canaanite majority, or even with a Jewish majority?
[The gemara addresses the first question -- "Does R. Shimon b. Elazar's ruling apply whether the majority is Canaanite or Jewish?]
Come, learn [an anonymous b'raita that has already been cited on p. 21b]: One who finds coins in synagogues, or in study halls, or in any place where there are large numbers of people, these are his [the finder's], because the owners despair of recovery. From whom did we learn that go by the majority? It is R. Shimon b. Elazar [in the b'raita that we have been discussing]. [Thus, the author of the anonymous b'raita must also be R. Shimon b. Elazar.] We can therefore conclude that [R. Shimon b. Elazar's rule applies] even if [as in the b'raita about coins in the synagogue] the majority is Jewish.
The gemara rejects that proof: What case are we discussing here [in the anonymous b'raita]? Scattered coins [in which case _everyone_ agrees that the finder may keep the coins (cf. our mishna) whereas here we are dealing with identifiable objects].
But if the coins are scattered, why mention that it is a place with many people? Even if there were _not_ many people [the fact that the coins were scattered would mean that the finder could keep them]?
Instead, [the anonymous b'raita] refers to bundled [money, which _is_ identifiable]. What case are we discussing? [Money found in the] Assembly houses of Canaanites. [The term "beit k'nesset," translated above as synagogue, literally means "house of assembly" (as does the Greek "synagogue." Thus, it is possible to have a Canaanite "beit k'nesset" or assembly house.]
[But even if you try to explain "assembly houses" are referring to Canaanite rather than Jewish places,] Study halls were mentioned [in the b'raita, and study halls refers only to places for the study of Torah].
[The b'raita refers to] Study halls frequented by Canaanites [Rashi: employed as guards]. [Even though the majority was Jewish, the few Canaanite guards were especially likely to look for lost objects, and to keep them. Thus, even though the majority was Jewish, we can presume that the owner despairs, assuming that a Canaanite guard found the item.] Now that we have come to this, then [the same would apply to] our synagogues [because there may be Canaanite guards there too].
[Thus, our anonymous b'raita cannot be ascribed to R. Shimon ben Elazar by analogy with the present b'raita, so it cannot provide unequivocal proof of whether R. Shimon b. Elazar's ruling that found items need not be announced applies to places with Jewish or Canaanite majorities.]
We are now eight lines from the bottom of 24a.
[We begin 8 lines from the bottom on 24a, as the gemara continues its effort to clarify the statement of R. Shimon b. Elazar that one who finds an item in a place frequented by many people can keep the item].
Ta Sh'ma: (Come and learn mishna 2:8 in the tractate Machshirin 2:8): If one found a lost object in (a city with a mixed Canaanite - Jewish population), if the majority of residents are Jews, he must announce it; if the majority are Canaanites, he is not required to announce it.
Whom have we heard saying that we go by the majority? It is R. Shimon b. Elazar (suggesting that the anonymous mishna in Machshirin was also his). From here we learn that when R. Shimon b. Elazar stated (his rule that one need not announce the finding), he was referring to a place with a Canaanite majority, but not in a place with a Jewish majority.
But the gemara rejects this proof: Who is the tanna (whose opinion is reflected in the mishna in Machshirin)? It is the Rabbis (who disagree with R. Shimon b. Elazar). [The Rabbis and R. Shimon may all agree that an item found in a place with a Canaanite majority need not be announced. But R. Shimon's ruling that one may keep the item may apply even in a place with a Jewish majority. So we _still_ don't know precisely the nature of R. Shimon b. Elazar's ruling.]
(The gemara continues): We can deduce from this that the Rabbis agree with R. Shimon b. Elazar in a place with a Canaanite majority. [This position suggests that the Rabbis _disagree_ with R. Shimon when there is a Jewish majority, and thus appears to resolve the second and third questions asked of R. Shimon b. Elazar's ruling, (which were, as you will recall:
Question 2: And if you will say [that R. Shimon b. Elazar's statement applies] even with a Jewish majority, do the rabbis disagree with him [and require an announcement] or do they not disagree with him [i.e., do they agree that no annoucement is required]? Question 3: And if you will say that the rabbis _do_ disagree with him, they certainly disagree where the majority in Jewish [and say that an announcement _is_ required], but do they disagree when the majority is Canaanite?]
Alternatively, (the mishna in Machshirin) may really be according to R. Shimon b. Elazar, (and --in his opinion -- one may keep the found item) even if the majority is Jewish. (So why does that mishna say that the item must be announced?) We are dealing there with a buried item (so that the owner does not give up hope of recovery).
If it is a buried object, what is it doing in his possesion (i.e., what gives the owner the right to take it at all -- he should simply leave it in its place)? As we have learned in a mishna (that we will soon reach, on 25b): "If one found a vessel in a garbage pile: If (the vessel) is covered, he should not touch it (because it was not lost, but had been intentionally hidden there), (but) if it is uncovered, he takes it and announces it. [So why does the finder have the right to take it at all?]
(The mishna can be explained) according to what Rav Pappa said: (The mishna is dealing with a garbage pile that is usually not cleared away, but (the owner of the pile) changed his mind and decided to clear it.
[Under such circumstances, it makes no sense {for the finder, who may well be the person who cleared the pile} to leave the object hidden. If the majority was Jewish, the finder must announce the find, according to R. Shimon. The reason that Rav Pappa specified a garbage pile that usually is not cleared is that if the garbage pile _was_ often cleared, even a buried item would be deemed abandoned.]
Alternatively, you can say that (the mishna in Machshirin) follows the Rabbis (and there is no need to invoke the garbage pile scenario). (But there still is no conclusive proof that the Rabbis agree with R. Shimon that an item found in an area with a Canaanite majority must be announced.) Does the mishna state that "they (the found items) are his?" It says "He does not have to announce the item" -- he sets it aside until a Jew comes and identifies the object), and takes it.
(We are now three lines from the top of 24b.)