Previous Daf

BAVA METZIA 24

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) Mar Zutra the Chasid's host once had his silver cup stolen. Mar Zutra discover the thief - by taking the Talmid whom he saw drying his hands on someone else's coat, and tying him to the post (as if they were about to give him Malkos), at which point the Talmid broke down and admitted.

click for question
2)
(a)We learned in a Beraisa that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (in our Mishnah) concedes that the finder is obligated to announce new vessels which the owner [Talmid-Chacham] will recognize immediately). The Tana gives three examples of new vessels which he will not recognize immediately: 'twigs' of needles, 'twigs' of forks - an strings of (small) spades.
(b) The Tana is talking about - small forks for spinning gold.
(c) Twigs in this context called 'Badi' - because 'Badi' implies anything that is used to hang something on (like a stem from which a leaf hangs).
(d) The Sugya in Succah says 'Alah Echad be'Bad Echad' - in connection with the Mitzvah of Aravah on Hoshana Rabah, which, according to some, one can fulfill with 'one stem containing one leaf'.

click for question
3)
(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar permits someone who saves from a wild animal, a raging torrent, or who finds something in a public street or public place - to keep the article in question.
(b) We ask whether Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar stated his Din even where there are a majority of Jews, and if the Rabbanan argue with him - and if they do, whether they argue even in a place where there are a majority of Jews. Then we ask whether the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, and if it is, whether it is like him only in a place whether the majority of people are Nochrim, or even if they are Yisre'eilim.
(c) Based on the literal understanding of Beis ha'Kenesses and Beis ha'Medrash, we try to prove from the Beraisa, which permits the finder to keep money that he found in a Beis ha'Keneses or a Beis ha'Medrash - that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar allows the finder to keep the article even where there is a majority of Yisre'eilim.
(d) We try to refute this proof by establishing the Beraisa by money that is scattered - but if that was the case, then what difference would it make whether many people frequent the place where the money was found or not?

click for question
4)
(a) Initially, we go on to refute the proof by establishing Batei K'nesi'os as places where Nochrim gather for discussions and meetings - and Batei Medrashos as Jewish Batei Medrash in which Nochrim reside (and that is how we ultimately also interpret Batei K'nesi'os).
(b) The Nochrim who resided in Jewish Batei K'nesi'os and Batei Medrashos (which were situated outside the town) - were hired as guards.
(c) The Mishnah in Machshirin obligates someone who finds something in a town which contains a majority of Jewish residents, to announce what he finds, but permits him to keep it of most of the residents are Nochrim. We refute the proof from here that ...
1. ... Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar only permits the finder to keep what he finds where there are majority of Nochrim - by establishing the author as the Rabbanan.
2. ... the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar where there are a majority of Nochrim - by establishing the Beraisa where the found object is covered ('Tamun') ...
(d) ... because the fact that the article is covered obligates the finder to return it - on the grounds that it was placed there deliberately and is not lost.

click for question
5)
(a) The Mishnah later rules that someone who finds a covered article in a trash-heap - should leave it where it is.
(b) And the fact that the covered article in the previous case comes to be in the hands of the finder - is due to the fact that it was lying inside a trash-heap that was not meant to be cleared away, but whose owner changed his mind (in which case, the found article would be thrown away with the trash, unless the finder took it and announced it), as Rav Papa will explain there.

click for question
6)
(a) Alternatively, the author of the Beraisa is still the Rabbanan, but we reinterpret 'Eino Chayav le'Hachriz' - to mean that the finder must leave it where it is.
(b) And the case is where someone found an uncovered article in a town with a majority of Nochri residents, which cannot be announced (in case a Nochri claims it), but which must be returned, should a Yisrael claim it ...
(c) ... a proof that the Rabbanan do not even agree with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar where there are a majority of Nochrim.

click for question
7)
(a) Rav Asi ruled that someone who finds a barrel of wine in a town with a majority of Nochrim ...
1. ... is not obligated to announce it.
2. ... is forbidden to drink it (in case it is Yayin Nesech).
(b) If a Yisrael subsequently identifies it - the finder (who may retain it) is permitted to drink it.
(c) The alternative to proving from here that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar confines his ruling to where there are a majority of Nochrim is - that his Din extends to a place where there are a majority of Yisre'elim - but that the Rabbanan argue with him in the latter case, and Rav Asi holds like him in the former.
(d) Despite the fact that the wine is forbidden be'Hana'ah to the finder, it is necessary to permit the him to keep it - because of the barrel, which is permitted to use.

click for question
8)
(a) Rav Yehudah ruled that the man who found four Zuz wrapped in a cloth which had been cast into the River Biran - was obligated to announce it.
(b) He did not permit him to keep them because of the Din of 'Zuto shel Yam' - because the river was full of obstacles, which prevented anything thrown into it from moving too far without getting caught. As a result, the losers would not be Meya'esh.
(c) Based on the fact that most of those who frequented that area were Nochrim, we try to prove from here - that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar even where there are a majority of Nochrim.
(d) We refute this proof however, by countering that in the same way as a Yisrael probably lost it, a Yisrael probably found it (in which case the owner was not Meya'esh). We know that a Yisrael probably ...
1. ... lost it - because it was Yisre'eilim who were normally involved in building the dam.
2. ... found it - because it was Yisre'eilim who would subsequently re-dig it.

click for question
9)
(a) Rav Yehudah asked Shmuel, as they walked through the market where they sold crushed-wheat (for porridge-making) - what the Din would be if someone found a wallet there.
(b) When Shmuel replied that he would be permitted to keep it, and then, that he had to return it, he meant - that strictly speaking, he was permitted to keep it, but that one should really go 'Lifnim mi'Shuras ha'Din' (beyond the letter of the law).
(c) When Rava asked Rav Nachman the same question as Rav Yehudah asked Shmuel, whilst they were walking through the leather-merchants market - he ruled that he would be permitted to keep it.
(d) And when Rava asked him 'va'ha'Lo Omed ve'Tzove'ach', he replied - that his tears where as effective as someone who cries for his house that fell down or for his ship that sunk at sea.

click for question
10)
(a) When a vulture picked up a piece of meat in the main street and deposited it among the palm-trees of bar Meryon, Abaye ruled - that Bei bar Meryon were permitted to keep it.
(b) There is no proof from here that the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar even where there are a majority of Yisre'eilim - because a vulture can be compared to a stormy sea or a raging torrent, which, we have already learned, is permitted in any case.

click for question
11)
(a) Rav rules - that meat that has been hidden from the eye is prohibited (for fear that it has been exchanged for a piece of non-Kasher meat).
(b) Abaye permitted Bei bar Meryon to keep the piece of mean that the vulture dropped among his palm-trees - because someone saw the bird from the moment that it took it till the time that he dropped it (so we know that the vulture did not exchange the meat for another piece).

click for question
12)
(a) Beis-Din permitted Rebbi Chanina to keep the Shechted goat that he found between Teverya and Tzipori - because the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, at least where there are a majority of Nochrim.
(b) They also permitted him to eat it because of Rebbi Chananya the son of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who rules in a Beraisa that if someone loses his kid-goats which he later finds Shechted, he is permitted to eat them - due to the Chazakah that most people who Shecht, are experts in the Dinim of Shechitah).
(c) Rebbi Yehudah - forbids him to eat them.
(d) Rebbi concurs with ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - there where the fledglings are found in a trash-heap (a sign that it is not Kasher.
2. ... Rebbi Chananya the son of Rebbi Yossi Ha'gelili - where they is found in the house.

click for question
13)
(a) Seeing as they permitted Rebbi Chanina to eat the goat, it must be speaking when there were a majority of Yisre'eilim, yet he was permitted to keep it. There is no proof from here however, that Rebbi Shimon's ruling extends even to where there are a majority of Yisre'eilim - because the Tana is speaking where the majority of Sochtim were Yisre'eilim, but where most of the population were Nochrim.
(b) When Rebbi Ami asked Rebbi Asi (Rebbi Yochanan or the Rabbanim in the Beis-ha'Medrash) about Shechted fledglings that he found between Teverya and Tzipori - he ruled that they were permitted.
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha received a similar ruling from Rebbi Yochanan (or from the Rabbanim in the Beis-ha'Medrash) when he found there - a ball of material for spinning fisherman's nets.

click for question
14)
(a) Our Mishnah - obligates someone who finds fruit in a vessel or an empty vessel, money in a purse or an empty purse to announce them ...
(b) ... because they all generally have a Si'man.

Next Daf