Bava Metzia

to one who purchases from a merchant;  but if one buys from a private individual, he is bound to return [the coins].  And a tanna recited likewise before R. Nahman: This refers only to one who purchases from a merchant: but if from a private individual, he is bound to return [the coins]. Thereupon R. Nahman observed to him: 'Did then the private individual thresh [the grain] himself?'  'Shall I then delete it?' he enquired. — 'No,' he replied; 'interpret the teaching of one who threshed [the grain] by his heathen slaves and bondswomen. MISHNAH. NOW, THE GARMENT TOO WAS INCLUDED IN ALL THESE: WHY THEN WAS IT SINGLED OUT?  THAT AN ANALOGY MIGHT BE DRAWN THEREWITH, TEACHING: JUST AS A GARMENT IS DISTINGUISHED IN THAT IT BEARS IDENTIFICATION MARKS AND IS CLAIMED, SO MUST EVERYTHING BE ANNOUNCED, IF IT BEARS IDENTIFICATION MARKS AND IS CLAIMED. GEMARA. What is meant by IN ALL THESE? — Said Raba: In the general phrase, [and in like manner shalt thou do] with every lost article of thy brother. Raba said: Why should the Divine Law have enumerated ox, ass, sheep and garment?  They are all necessary. For had the Divine Law mentioned 'garment' alone, I would have thought: That is only if the object itself can be attested, or the object itself bears marks of identification. But in the case of an ass, if its saddle is attested or its saddle bears marks of identification,  I might think that it is not returned to him. Therefore the Divine Law wrote 'ass,' to shew that even the ass [too is returned] in virtue of the identification of its saddle. For what purpose did the Divine Law mention 'ox' and 'sheep'?' — 'Ox', that even the shearing of its tail, and 'sheep', that even its shearings [must be returned].  Then the Divine Law should have mentioned 'ox', to shew that even the shearing of its tail [must be returned], from which the shearings of a sheep would follow a fortiori? — But, said Raba, 'ass,' mentioned in connection with a pit,  on R. Judah's view, and 'sheep' in connection with a lost article, on all views, are [unanswerable] difficulties.  But why not assume that it comes [to teach] that the dung [too must be returned]? — [The ownership of] dung is renounced.  But perhaps its purpose is to teach the law of identification marks? For it is a problem to us whether identification marks are Biblically valid [as a means of proving ownership] or only by Rabbinical law; therefore Scripture wrote 'sheep' to shew that it must be returned even on the strength of identification marks, thus proving that these are Biblically valid. — I will tell you: since the Tanna refers to identification marks in connection with 'garment', for he teaches, JUST AS A GARMENT IS DISTINGUISHED IN THAT IT BEARS IDENTIFICATION MARKS AND IS CLAIMED, SO MUST EVERYTHING BE ANNOUNCED, IF IT BEARS IDENTIFICATION MARKS AND IS CLAIMED, it follows that the purpose of 'sheep' is not to teach the validity of identification marks. Our Rabbis taught: [And so shalt thou do with all lost things of thy brother's] which shall be lost to him:  — this excludes a lost article worth less than a perutah. R. Judah said: And thou hast found it  — this excludes a lost article worth less than a perutah.  Wherein do they differ? — Said Abaye: They differ as to the texts from which the law is derived: one Master deduces it from, 'which shall be lost to him;' the other, from, 'and thou hast found it.'  Now, he who derives it from, 'which shall be lost to him,' how does he employ, 'and thou hast found it?' — He requires it for Rabbanai's dictum. For Rabbanai said: And thou hast found it implies even if it has come into his possession.  Now, he who deduces it from, 'and thou hast found it,' how does he utilize, 'which shall be lost to him?' — He needs it for R. Johanan's dictum. For R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai:  Whence do we know that a lost article swept away by a river is permitted [to the finder]? From the verse, 'And so shalt thou do with all the lost things of thy brother which shall be lost to him and thou hast found it': [this implies.] that which is lost to him but is available  to others in general, thus excluding that which is lost to him and is not available to others. And the other, whence does he infer Rabbanai's dictum? — He derives it from, and thou hast found it.  And the other, whence does he know R. Johanan's dictum? — From, [which shall be lost] to him.  And the other?  — In his opinion, to him has no particular significance. Raba said: They differ in respect of [a loss worth] a perutah, which [subsequently] depreciated.  On the view that it is derived from, 'which shall be lost to him,' there is [the loss of a perutah]; but according to him who deduces it from, 'and thou hast found it,' there is not [a find of a perutah]. Now, he who emphasizes, 'which shall be lost' — surely, 'and thou hast found it,' must also be applicable, which is not [the case here]! — But they differ in respect of [an article now worth] a perutah, having appreciated.  On the view that it is deduced from, 'and thou hast found it,' there is [the find of a perutah]; whereas according to him who deduces it from, 'which shall be lost,' there is not [the loss of a perutah]. Now, he who emphasizes, 'and thou host found it' — surely, 'which shall be lost,' must also be applicable, which is not [the case here]! — But they differ in respect of [an article worth] a perutah, which fell and then rose in value again.  On the view that it is derived from, 'which shall be lost.' there is [the loss of a perutah]; but according to the opinion that it is inferred from, 'and thou host found it,' it must have had the standard of a 'find' from the time of being lost until found. The scholars propounded: Are identification marks [legally valid] by Biblical or merely by Rabbinical law? What is the practical difference? —