Bava Metzia

What if they are arranged as the stones of a Merculis way-mark?  — 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. 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.  Moreover, even if his name is written upon it, his claim is still rejected,  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. MISHNAH. IF A MAN FINDS FLEDGLINGS TIED TOGETHER BEHIND A FENCE OR WALL, OR IN THE PATHWAYS THROUGH FIELDS, HE MUST NOT TOUCH THEM.  IF A MAN FINDS A VESSEL IN A DUNGHEAP: IF COVERED UP, HE MUST NOT TOUCH IT;  IF UNCOVERED. HE MUST TAKE AND PROCLAIM IT. GEMARA. What is the reason?  — 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!  — 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!  — 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!  — 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;  in the case of knives and forks, he must take and proclaim them.  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.  'A dungheap which is regularly cleared away'! — But then it is a voluntary loss?  — But it refers to a dungheap which was not regularly cleared away, but he [its owner] decided to clear it out.  Now, as for R. papa, it is well; on that account  it is stated, 'because it is the nature of a dunghill to be cleared away.'  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. MISHNAH. IF HE FINDS [AN ARTICLE] AMIDST DEBRIS OR IN AN OLD WALL,  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.  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,  They belonged to Amorites.  Do then only Amorites hide objects. and not Israelites?  — This holds good only