Bava Metzia

But what of that which we learnt: If one finds a roll of notes or a bundle of notes he must surrender [them]:  here too, [is then the reason] because the debtor is pleased that they should be returned to the creditor! — But, said Raba, identification marks are Biblically valid, because it is written, And it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it. Now, would it then have occurred to you that he should return it to him before he sought it! But [it means this:] examine him [the claimant], whether he be a fraud or not.  Surely that is by means of identification marks! That proves it. Raba said: Should you resolve that identification marks are Biblically valid … ('Should you resolve!' — but he has proved that they are Biblically valid! — That is because it can be explained as was answered [above].)  If two sets of identification marks [are offered by two conflicting claimants], it [the lost article] must be left [in custody].  [If one states] identification marks and [another produces] witnesses, it [the lost article] must be surrendered to him who has witnesses.  [If one states] identification marks, and [another also states] identification marks and [produces] one witness — one witness is as non-existent, and so it must be left. [If one produces] witnesses of weaving,  and [another] witnesses of dropping,  it must be given to the latter, because we argue, He [the first] may have sold, and another lost it. [If one states] its length, and [another] its breadth,  it must be given to [him who states its] length; because it is possible to conjecture the breadth when its owner is standing and wearing it, whereas the length cannot be [well] conjectured.  [If one states] its length and breadth, and another its gums,  it must be surrendered to the former. If the length, breadth, and weight [are stated by different claimants], it must be given to [him who states] its weight. If he [the husband] states the identification marks of a bill of divorce, and she does likewise,  it must be given to her.  Wherewith [is it identified]? Shall we say, by its length and breadth? perhaps she saw it whilst he was holding it!  — But it had a perforation at the side of a certain letter. If he identifies the ribbon [with which the divorce was tied], and she does likewise, it must be given to her. Wherewith [is it identified]? Shall we say, by [its colour], white or red? perhaps she saw it whilst he was holding it! — Hence, by its length. If he states, [it was found] in a valise, and she states likewise, it must be surrendered to him. Why? She knows full well that he places whatever he has [of his documents] in a valise.  MISHNAH. NOW, UNTIL WHEN IS HE [THE FINDER] OBLIGED TO PROCLAIM IT? UNTIL HIS NEIGHBOURS MAY KNOW THEREOF: THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW. R. JUDAH MAINTAINED: [UNTIL] THREE FESTIVALS [HAVE PASSED], AND AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE LAST FESTIVAL, GIVING THREE DAYS FOR GOING HOME, THREE DAYS FOR RETURNING, AND ONE DAY FOR ANNOUNCING. GEMARA. A Tanna taught: The neighbours of the loss [are referred to in the Mishnah]. What is the meaning of 'the neighbours of the loss?' Shall we say, the neighbours of the loser? But if they know him [who lost it], let them go and return it to him! — But [it means] the neighbours of the vicinity wherein the lost article was found. R. JUDAH MAINTAINED etc. But the following contradicts this: On the third day of Marcheshvan  we [commence to] pray for rain.  R. Gamaliel said: On the seventh, which is fifteen days after the Festival,  so that the last [of the pilgrims] in Eretz Yisrael  can reach the river Euphrates!  — Said R. Joseph: There is no difficulty. The latter refers to the days of the First Temple, the former [sc. our Mishnah] to the Second. During the First Temple, when the Israelites were extremely numerous, as it is written of them, Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude,  such a long period was required.  But during the Second Temple, when the Israelites were not very numerous, as it is written of them, The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore,  such a long time was unnecessary. Thereupon Abaye protested to him: But is it not written, So the priests and the Levites, and the porters, and the singers, and some of the people and the Nethinims, and all Israel, dwelt in their cities?  and that being so, the logic is the reverse. During the first Temple, when the Israelites were very numerous, the people united [for travelling purposes], and caravan companies were to be found travelling day and night, so long a period was unnecessary, and three days were sufficient. But during the second Temple, when the Israelites were not very numerous, the people did not join together [for travelling], and caravan companies were not available for proceeding day and night, this long period was necessary! — Raba said: There is no difference between the first Temple and the Second: the Rabbis did not put one to unreasonable trouble in respect of a lost article. Rabina said: This [sc. our Mishnah] proves that when the proclamation was made, [the loss of] a garment was announced.  For should you think, a lost article was proclaimed [unspecified], another day should have been added to enable one to examine his belongings! Hence it follows that [the loss of] a garment was proclaimed. This proves it. Raba said: You may even say that a mere loss was proclaimed: the Rabbis did not put one to unreasonable trouble in respect of a lost article. Our Rabbis taught: At the first Festival [of proclamation] it was announced: 'This is the first Festival;' at the second Festival it was announced: 'This is the second Festival;' but at the third a simple announcement was made.  Why so; let him announce: 'It is the third Festival'? — So that it should not be mistaken for the second.  But the second, too,