Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 50

lege, and was told to keep it for himself. R. Itzhak of Naph'ha found a ball of cord, of which nets were made, and he came before R. Johanan or in the college, and was told to keep it for himself. MISHNA //. : The following articles he must proclaim: When he found a vessel containing fruit or an empty one, money in a purse or an empty one, heaps of fruit or heaps of money, or even three coins which were one upon another, sheaves in private ground and bread made in a household, and shorn wool which looks as if it was already in the hand of a master, pitchers of wine or oil, all these he must proclaim. GEMARA : The Mishna treats of a case when the fruit was found in the vessel, and the money in the purse ; but how is it if the vessel was empty and fruit was scattered near by, or the purse was empty and the money was near it ? It would be his without any proclamation, and the rabbis taught the same plainly in a Boraitha, with the addition that if a part of it was in the vessel or in the purse, and another part on the ground near by, he must proclaim. Does this not contradict the follow- ing: If one has found an article which has no mark, near an article which has a mark, he must proclaim ; and if the owner comes declaring the mark, and takes the article, he is also entitled to the other one which was without a mark (hence the vessel and the fruit in question should be proclaimed) ? Said R. Zbid: This presents no difficulty. The Boraitha which states it is his treats of, e.g., an empty vat and near it flax (it is not to be supposed that the flax fell out of the vat, as some would remain there, and the same is the case with an empty purse and money near it), and the Boraitha which states it should be proclaimed treats of an empty basket, and fruit which is supposed to have fallen out of the basket. R. Papa, how- ever, maintains that both Boraithas may treat of a basket and fruit, but one speaks of a case where some was left in the basket, and the other one treats when it was entirely empty; and if you wish, it may be said that both treat of a case when nothing was left, but in one case the face of the vessel was turned toward the fruit, and in the other case the vessel was with a rim (so if the fruit which was found near it would fall from the vessel, some of it would remain there because of the rim). " Heaps of fruit,'' etc. Infer from this that the number is a mark? Perhaps the plurality stated in the Mishna is not TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 55 correct, as it ought to be singular. If so, infer from it that " place " is a mark? Perhaps the plurality is correct.* Three coins one upon the other,'' etc. Said R. Itzhak of Magdahlif Only when they were like a steeple. The same we have learned in the following Boraitha: If one found scattered coins, they are his ; if, however, they were lying in a steeple- like manner, he must proclaim. And what is to be understood as steeple-like manner ? Where three coins were lying one upon another. Does not the Boraitha contradict itself? It begins " scat- tered money," of which it is to be inferred that if it was not entirely scattered, but in the condition where a part overlapped another, and the other part was on the ground, it must be pro- claimed ; and immediately after it states that it was in a steeple- like manner, etc., of which it is to be inferred that if they were not so but overlapped, it is his ? The Tana is of the opinion that if they were not placed in a steeple-like manner it is con- sidered scattered. Said R. Hanina: " The case in question speaks of coins of three different rulers; but if they were of the very same ruler, they are his." How is this to be understood ? If they were placed in a steeple-like manner, he must certainly proclaim, no matter of what ruler they are; and if scattered, even if they are from three rulers; what is it ? Therefore if the statement was made by R. Hanina, it is as follows: The case is only when the three coins were placed as if they were of three rulers: viz., the larger one at the bottom, the middle one, which was a little smaller, upon it, and the third, a still smaller one, on the top, which indicates that some one placed it so intentionally; but if the coins were of one ruler and of one kind, that all were alike, even if they were one upon the other, it is his, as it may hap- pen that they were lost by the owner in such a manner. R. Johanan, however, is of the opinion that even if they were from one ruler he must proclaim. * Such a discussion or question and answer occurs very seldom, if this be not the only one, in the whole Talmud, and it shows that the sages of the Gemara were doubtful whether the Mishna was transmitted to them correctly ; in other words, they did not know exactly whether the paragraph submitted to them was a correct transla- tion from the original. Mark this. f The literal translation of the word " Magdahl " is steeple, or turret ; and Itzhak of Magdahl means the Itzhak who delivered the Halakha of Magdahl. See Hacha'h- lutz by Schur, in the chapter where he discusses about the names of the Tanaim and Amouraim, who were named according to the Halakha they taught. S6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. What shall he proclaim ? If the number, why then three; even two should be the same. Said Rabbina: He proclaims the kind of coin. R. Ashi questioned: If they were placed like the stones of Markullus (an idol of ancient times which was worshipped by putting stones one upon the other), what is the law ? Come and hear. There is a Boraitha : Scattered money, it is his; however, like the stones of Kullis, he must proclaim. And how were the above stones placed ? Two on either side and one on top of both. The rabbis taught: If one finds a sala in the market, and his neighbor claims it is his, giv- ing a mark that it is new, it is a coin of Nero or of another ruler, he says nothing ; and even if he says my name is written upon it, it counts for nothing, because on a coin no mark is to be considered, as he may nevertheless have given it away to some one and it was lost by the latter. MISHNA ///. : If one found under a wooden wall, or a brick one, pigeons tied one to the other, or if they were placed on a thoroughfare of a private field, he must not touch them. The same is the case with a covered vessel found in rubbish; if, however, it was uncovered, he may take it and proclaim. GEMARA: Why shall it not be touched ? Because it may be that some one has hid it, but it has no mark on it (so if it would be taken away he could not regain it), therefore it must be left until the owner will come and take it. But why should not the tying be ^ distinguishing mark ? Said R. Abba b.