Babylonian Talmud Bava Mezia 21b-24a: Lost and Found

Greco-Roman Period
Much of the Babylonian Talmud is devoted to the detailed exploration of the legal ramifications of mishnaic rulings in matters pertaining to civil law. The talmudic Rabbis, in cooperation with, and at times in opposition to the exilarchs, were heavily involved in the administration of this aspect of law among Jews. The passage presented here is typical of the careful, logical analysis which became the basis for the study of the Talmud throughout the ages.

MISHNAH- “Some finds belong to the finder; others must be announced. 48 The
following articles belong to the finder- if one finds scattered fruit, scattered money, small
sheaves in a public thoroughfare, round cakes of pressed figs, a baker’s loaves, strings of
fishes, pieces of meat, fleeces of wool which have been brought from the country,
bundles of flax and stripes of purple, colored wool; all these belong to the finder. This is
the view of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says- whatsoever has in it something unusual must
be announced, as, for instance, if one finds a round [of figs] containing a potsherd, or a
loaf containing money. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says- new merchandise need not be
announced.” 49

GEMARA- “If one finds scattered fruit, etc.” 50 What quantity [of fruit in a given space]
is meant? Rabbi Isaac said- “A kav 51 within four cubits.” 52 But what kind of a case is
meant? If [the fruit appears to have been] dropped accidentally, then even if there is more
than a kav [it should] also [belong to the finder]. And if it appears to have been
[deliberately] put down, then even if there is a smaller quantity it should not [belong to
the finder]? Rav Uqba bar Hama answered- “We deal here with [the remains of] what has
been gathered on the threshing floor- [To collect] a kav [scattered over a space] of four
cubits is troublesome, and, as people do not trouble to come back and collect it, [the
owner also] abandons it, but if it is [spread over] a smaller space [the owner] does come
back and collect it, and he does not abandon it.”

Rabbi Jeremiah inquired- “How is it [if one finds] half a kav [scattered over the space]
of two cubits? Is the reason why a kav within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is
troublesome [to collect], and therefore half a kav within two cubits, which is not
troublesome to collect, is not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder], or is the
reason [in the case of a kav within four cubits] that it is not worth the trouble of collecting
[when spread over such a space], and therefore half a kav within two cubits, which is still
less worth the trouble of collecting, is abandoned [and should belong to the finder]?

[Again,] how is it [if one finds] two kavs [scattered over the space] of eight cubits? Is the
reason why a kav within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is troublesome to
collect, and therefore two kavs within eight cubits, which are still more troublesome to
collect, are even more readily abandoned [and should certainly belong to the finder], or is
the reason [in the case of a kav within four cubits] that it is not worth the trouble [of
collecting], and therefore two kavs within eight cubits, which are worth the trouble [of
collecting] are not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder]?”… The questions
remain unanswered. 53

It has been stated- 54 “Anticipated abandonment [of the hope of recovering a lost
article] 55 is, Abaye maintains, no abandonment, but Rava maintains that it is an
abandonment.” [If the lost article is] a thing which has an identification mark, all agree
that [the anticipation of its abandonment by the owner] is no abandonment, and even if in
the end we hear him [express regret at his loss in a way that makes it clear] that he has
abandoned it, it is not [deemed to be an] abandonment, for when [the finder] took
possession of it he had no right to it because [it is assumed that] when [the loser]
becomes aware that he lost it, he will not give up the hope [of recovering it] but says [to
himself], “I can recognize it by an identification mark; I shall indicate the identification
mark and shall take it back.” [If the lost article is found] in the intertidal space of the
seashore or on ground that is flooded by a river, then, even if it has an
identification mark, the Divine Law permits [the finder to acquire it], as we shall explain
further on. They 56 differ only where the article has no identification mark. Abaye says- “It
is no abandonment,” because [the loser] did not know that he lost it; Rava says- “It is an
abandonment,” because when he becomes aware that he lost it, he gives up the hope [of
recovering it] as he says [to himself], “I cannot recognize it by an identification mark,” it
is therefore as if he had given up hope from the moment [he lost it]. 57

Come and hear- 58 “Scattered money, [etc.] belong to the finder.” 59 Why? [Is it not a case
in which the loser] did not know that he lost it? 60 There also it is even as Rabbi Isaac
said- ‘‘A man usually feels for his purse at frequent intervals.” So here, too, [we say,] ‘‘A
manusually feels for his purse at frequent intervals” [and soon discovers his loss]. 61
Come and hear- “Round cakes of pressed figs, a baker’s loaves, [etc.] belong to the
finder.” 62 Why? [Is it not a case in which the loser] did not know that he lost it? There
also he becomes aware of his loss, because [the lost articles] are heavy….

Come and hear- “From what time are people allowed to appropriate the gleanings [of a
reaped field]? After the ‘gropers’ have gone through it.” 63 Whereupon we asked- “What
is meant by the ‘gropers?’” and Rabbi Yohanan answered- “Old people who walk leaning
on a stick,” while Resh Laqish answered- “The last in the succession of gleaners.” Now
why should this be so? Granted that the local poor give up hope [of finding any
gleanings), there are poor people in other places who do not give up hope? 64 I will say-
Seeing that there are local poor, those [in other places] give up hope right away, as they
say, “The poor of that place have already gleaned it” 65 ….

Come and hear- Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Ishmael ben Jehozadak- 66
“Whence [do we learn] that an article lost through the flooding of a river may be retained
[by the finder]? It is written, ‘And so shall you do with his ass; and so shall you do with
his garment; and so shall you do with every lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost
and you have found’ (Deut. 22-3) [which means to say that only] if the object has been
lost by him and may be found by any person [has it to be returned to him, and it follows
that] a case like this 67 is exempt [from the biblical law], since it is lost to him and cannot
be found by any person.” 68 Moreover, the object which is forbidden [to be kept by the
finder] is like the object which is permitted [to be kept by the finder]- Just as the
permitted object may be kept irrespective of whether it has an identification mark or not,
so the forbidden object may not be kept irrespective of whether it has an identification
mark or not. [This is] a complete refutation of Rava. 69 And the law is in accordance with
Abaye in [the cases indicated by the initials] Y‘AL KGM…. 70

“Small sheaves in a public thoroughfare belong to the finder.” Rabbah said- Even when
they have an identification mark. Consequently [it must be assumed that] Rabbah is of
the opinion that an identification mark which is liable to be trodden on 71 is not [deemed
to be] an identification mark. Rava said [on the other hand]- [The Mishnah] refers only to
things which have no identification mark, but things which have an identification mark
have to be announced. 72 Consequently [it must be assumed that] Rava is of the opinion
that an identification mark that is liable to be trodden on is [deemed to be] an
identification mark. Some teach this as an independent controversy. In regard to an
identification mark which is liable to be trodden on, Rabbah says that it is not [deemed to
be] an identification mark, but Rava says that it is [deemed to be] an identification mark.

We have learnt- Small sheaves [which are found] in a public thoroughfare belong to the
finder, [but if found] on private grounds they have to be taken up and announced. How is
this to be understood? If [the sheaves] have no identification mark, what is there to be
announced [if they are found] on private grounds? It must therefore be that they have an
identification mark, and still it is stated that [if found] in a public thoroughfare they
belong to the finder. Consequently [it must be assumed that] an identification mark which
is liable to be trodden on is not [deemed to be] an identification mark, which is a
refutation of Rava! Rava may answer you- “In reality they have no identification mark;
and as to your question, ‘What is there to be announced [if they were found] on private
grounds?’, [the answer is-] The place [where they were found] is announced.” But
Rabbah says that the place is no identification….

Rav Bibi asked of Rav Nahman- Is the place [where an article is found] an identification
mark or not? [Rav Nahman] answered him- “You have learned it- 73 ‘If one finds barrels
of wine, or of oil, or of corn, or of dried figs, or of olives, they belong to him.’ Now if
you were to assume that the place [where an article is found] is an identification mark
[the finder] ought to announce the place!” 74 Rav Zebid answered- “Here we deal with
[barrels found] on the river-bank.’’ 75 Rav Mari said- “For what reason did the Rabbis
maintain that the river-bank does not constitute an identification mark? Because we say
to him- As it happened to you, so it may have happened to your neighbor.” Some have
another version- Rav Mari said- “For what reason did the Rabbis maintain that the place
constitutes no identification mark? Because we say to him- As it happened to you in this
place, so it may have happened to your neighbor in this [same] place.” 76

47. Trans. I. Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud (London- Soncino Press, 1935-52) 35 vols.
48. Publicly, in order that the person who lost something then may come and claim the lost item.

49. Mishnah Bava Metzia 2-1.

50. Quoting the Mishnah.

51. Approximately a quart and a half.

52. Six square feet. A cubit is about 18 inches.

53. Often talmudic arguments do not reach a conclusion. Medieval codifiers later ruled on many of these
issues.

54. This formulation introduces an amoraic statement.

55. “Anticipated abandonment” refers to a presumption that the original owner has given up ownership of a
lost object. The issue concerns whether in situations in which a normal owner would have given up
ownership if he knew of the loss, we can anticipate that even without knowing of the loss of the object, he
would give up ownership.

56. Abaye and Rava.

57. Hence, the finder may keep it.

58. The Talmud now tries to determine the law by quoting and analyzing tannaitic traditions.

59. Quoting the Mishnah.

60. And nevertheless it is assumed that the finder may keep it, proving that anticipated abandonment is
valid.

61. Hence, it is not a case of anticipated abandonment.

62. Quoting again from the Mishnah.

63. Mishnah Pe’eh 8-1. The “gropers” are entitled toglean the field due to their poverty.

64. Hence, it should be forbidden for others to take the leftover gleanings, even after the local poor have
gleaned.

65. Hence, it is indeed permitted for others to appropriate the remaining gleanings.

66. Manuscripts read- Simeon ben Jehozadak, a tanna who taught Rabbi Yohanan.

67. The loss caused by the flooding of a river.

68. Here the words of Rabbi Ishmael (or Simeon) ben Jehozadak end, and the anonymous gemara
continues.

69. Since it indicates that anticipated abandonment of the hope of recovery of the lost object is not
considered valid, and the finder may not keep the property.

70. These are initials used as a mnemonic, indicating the six cases in all the Babylonian Talmud in which
the law is according to Abaye.

71. And, therefore. which is easily destroyed.

72. One who loses an item with identification will not give up hope of its recovery, assuming that he can
provide the identifying mark and claim his property.

73. In a baraita.
74. Hence, location is not considered to be an identification mark.

75. But normally location is an identification mark.

76. Large amounts of merchandise are unloaded at the bank of the river and so there is no way of being
sure who the owner is even if the location is known.