Bava Metzia

In respect of returning a woman's divorce on the strength of identification marks:  should you say that they are Biblically [valid], we return it; but if only by Rabbinical law the Rabbis enacted this measure for civil matters only, not for ritual prohibitions?  — Come and hear: 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!  — The Tanna really desires [to teach] that there must be a claimant; identification marks are mentioned only incidentally. Come and hear: [Therefore Scripture wrote 'ass,' to shew that even] the ass [too is returned] in virtue of the identification marks of its saddle!  — Read: in virtue of the witnesses [attesting to the ownership] of its saddle. Come and hear: And it [sc. the article found] shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it [and thou shalt return it to him]:  now, would it then have occurred to thee that he should return it to him before he sought after it!  But [it means this:] examine him [the claimant], whether he be a fraud or not.  Surely that is by means of identification marks!  — No: by means of witnesses. Come and hear: Testimony  may be given  only on proof [afforded by] the face with the nose, even if the body and the garment bear identification marks.  This proves that identification marks are not Biblically valid! — I will tell you: In respect to the body, [the proposed identification marks were] that it was short or long;  whilst those of his garments [are rejected] because we fear borrowing.  But if we fear borrowing, why is an ass returned because of the identification of the saddle? — I will tell you: people do not borrow a saddle, because it chafes the ass ['s back].  Alternatively, the garments [were identified] through being white or red.  Then what of that which was taught: If he found it tied up in a purse, money bag, or to a ring, or if he found it amongst his [household] utensils, even a long time afterwards, it is valid.  Now should you think, we fear borrowing: if he found it tied up in his purse [etc.], why is it valid? Let us fear borrowing! — I will tell you: A purse, wallet, and signet ring are not lent: a purse and a money bag, because people are superstitious about it;  a signet ring, because one can commit forgery therewith. Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? [For it was taught:] Testimony may not be given  on the strength of a mole; but Eleazar b. Mahabai said: Testimony may be so given.  Surely then they differ in this: The first Tanna holds that identification marks are [only] Rabbinically valid,  whilst Eleazar b. Mahabai holds that they are Biblically valid? — Said Raba: All may agree that they are Biblically valid: they differ here as to whether a mole is to be found on one's affinity.  One Master maintains that a mole is [generally] found on a person's affinity;  whilst the other holds that it is not. Alternatively, all agree that it is not; they differ here as to whether identification marks  are liable to change after death. One Master maintains: Identification marks are liable to change after death;  the other, that they are not. Alternatively, all agree that a mole is not liable to change after death, and identification marks are valid only by Rabbinical law; they differ here as to whether a mole is a perfect mark of identification. One Master maintains that a mole is a perfect mark of identification,  whilst the other holds that it is not. Raba said: If you should resolve that identification marks are not Biblically valid, why do we return a lost article in reliance on these marks?  Because one who finds a lost article is pleased that it should be returned on the strength of identification marks, so that should he lose anything, it will likewise be returned to him through marks of identification. Said R. Safra to Raba: Can then one confer a benefit upon himself with money that does not belong to him! But [the reason is this:] the loser himself is pleased to offer identification marks and take it back.  He knows full well that he has no witnesses; therefore he argues to himself, 'Everyone does not know its perfect identification marks,  but I can state its perfect identification marks and take it back.' But what of that which we learnt: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: If it was one man who had borrowed from three, he [the finder] must return [them] to the debtor; if three had borrowed from one, he must return them to the creditor.  Is then the debtor pleased that it [the promissory note] is returned to the creditor? — In that instance, he replied to him, it is a matter of logic. If it was one man who had borrowed from three, he must return [them] to the debtor, because they are to be found [together] in the debtor's possession, but not in the creditor's:  hence the debtor must have dropped it. If three had borrowed from one, it must be returned to the creditor, because they are to be found in the creditor's possession, but not in the debtor's.