The Eri B. Sitt Edition is an audio series on the Talmud Bavli. The Mishnah teaches that certain lost objects must be announced, meaning that when you find them, you must publicize the find and announce that you found the object.
This applies when you find an object in a vessel, because these items have an identifying mark. For example, if you find produce in a vessel, the produce has an identifying mark. If you find money in a wallet, the wallet has an identifying mark. This also applies if you find the wallet without the money. If you find a pile of produce, we have to determine exactly what the identifying mark is. The same applies to a pile of money; there may be an identifying mark in the quantity or in the place where it was found.
If you find three coins stacked one on top of the other, that is also an identifying mark. Similarly, if you find small bundles in a private area, where not many people pass by, you must return them.
The Mishnah also discusses loaves belonging to householders. These are not ordinary bakery loaves. They are loaves that people baked for themselves, each person making them in his own particular way. Therefore, the form of the loaf is certainly an identifying mark.
It also discusses wool taken from the craftsman’s workshop or factory after he has placed an identifying mark on it. This is not raw wool without any distinguishing feature. Finally, the Mishnah discusses barrels of wine and barrels of oil. All of these objects have identifying marks, and therefore one must return them. That is the basic rule of the Mishnah: when an object has an identifying mark, it must be returned.
The Mishnah says that one must return everything when the produce is found inside the vessel. The reason is that we assume that whoever owns the vessel also owns the produce inside it. Why else would the produce be in the vessel? The vessel has an identifying mark, and when the owner comes and says, “That is my vessel,” and provides the identifying mark, we return the produce as well. Since he has identified the vessel, we may assume that the money or produce inside it also belongs to him.
However, if you find money in front of a wallet, you may keep the money. The reason you have to return money found inside a wallet is that it was found inside the wallet. But if the money is in front of the wallet, you do not have to assume that it fell from that wallet. You return the wallet because it has an identifying mark, but the finder may keep the money.
We have a source that supports this distinction. The Sages taught: if one finds a vessel with produce inside it, or a wallet with money inside it, he must return them. If some of the money is inside the wallet and some is on the ground, or some of the produce is inside the vessel and some is on the ground, he must return everything. Since some of the contents remain inside, we assume that the rest fell out of the vessel or wallet. If you find a vessel with three pieces of produce inside it and three pieces of produce in front of it, you must assume that the vessel tipped over and the produce fell out. Therefore, you must return everything.
We have an apparent contradiction. Another source teaches that if one finds an object with an identifying mark next to an object without an identifying mark, and the owner comes and provides an identifying mark for the first object, he returns the object with the identifying mark and keeps the other object. This seems to indicate that one does not have to return the item that may have fallen from the vessel or wallet.
Consider the case of a woman who finds money and a wallet next to each other. She must return the wallet if the owner provides an identifying mark, but she may keep the money. If the owner comes and says, “That is my wallet, but the money is not mine,” she may keep the money. Otherwise, however, she must return the money as well. The money being in front of the wallet connects it to the wallet. Yet we had just said that when money is on the ground in front of a wallet, one returns the wallet but keeps the money. The Gemara offers several answers.
Rav Zvid answered that the two sources are discussing different objects. The case in which the finder may keep the item found in front of the vessel is a vessel containing flax, with the flax lying in front of it. It is obvious that the flax did not fall out of the vessel. If the flax had fallen from the vessel, some flax would have remained inside, because when a bundle of flax falls from a vessel, the entire bundle does not usually come out. Therefore, if the vessel is empty and all the flax is outside it, we return the vessel, which has an identifying mark, and the finder may keep the flax. We do not have to connect the flax to that vessel.
The same applies to money that fell from a wallet. Ordinarily, some money should remain in the wallet. If the wallet is empty and all the money is lying outside it, we may keep the money and return the wallet, because we do not have to assume that the two are connected.
The case in which everything must be returned, however, discusses a basket and produce. It is normal for all the produce to fall out of a basket. Therefore, the fact that the basket is empty is not evidence that the produce did not come from it. All the produce could have fallen out. That is Rav Zvid’s answer: everything depends on the type of object. When you arrive at the scene, you have to investigate. You see the vessel, you see the item in front of it, and the owner comes and provides an identifying mark for the vessel. You then have to determine whether the item outside should be connected to that vessel.
With flax, if it had come from the vessel, some flax would have remained inside. The same is true of money in a wallet. But produce normally rolls out completely because it is smooth and slippery. Therefore, when the object normally empties out completely, you return the produce as well. The ruling is not automatic; it depends on the circumstances and on the investigation of how the object could have gotten there.
The Gemara gives additional answers. One answer says that both cases involve a basket of produce, but in one case some produce remained in the basket and in the other case none remained. When produce remains in the basket, we assume that the produce outside belongs to the basket. Rashi explains that when the basket has an ordinary rim, if the produce fell from it, some of the produce would generally have been caught by the rim and would have remained inside. If the basket is completely empty, one may assume that the produce outside belongs to someone else and may be kept.
Another answer says that both cases involve a basket that is empty. The difference is the position of the basket. If the basket is facing the produce, we assume that the produce fell from the basket and everything must be returned. If the back of the basket is facing the produce, we do not have to make that assumption, and the finder may keep the produce.
A further answer says that both cases involve the back of the basket facing the produce. The difference is whether the basket has a rim. If it has a rim, some produce should have remained inside, even if the basket is facing away from the produce. If it does not have a rim, all the produce could have fallen out. In that case, even if the basket is empty, we must return the produce as well.
The basic principle behind all these answers is whether we can reasonably assume that the produce came from the vessel. That depends on the direction of the vessel, whether it has a rim that would have held something back, or on another relevant factor. If we can make that assumption, the produce must be returned. If we cannot, the vessel is returned because it has an identifying mark, while the other object may be kept.
The Mishnah says that if one finds a pile of produce or a pile of money, he must return it. Where is the identifying mark? At first, one might say that the identifying mark is the quantity: how much money there was or how many pieces of produce there were.
The Gemara rejects that interpretation. Do not read the phrase as referring to scattered produce; read it as referring to produce collected in a pile. If it is a pile, the place where it was found may be the identifying mark. The owner can say, “There was a pile of produce in this particular place.” We therefore see that location can serve as an identifying mark.
Alternatively, the text may refer to scattered produce. In that case, the identifying mark is the quantity. Everything depends on which version of the Mishnah one reads. If the text refers to a pile, the place is the identifying mark. If it refers to scattered pieces of produce, the number is the identifying mark. A regular pile could appear in many places, so the owner must identify the particular place in which it was found. The Gemara therefore does not establish which wording is definitive.
The next case in the Mishnah involves three coins stacked one on top of the other. They must be returned because their arrangement is an identifying mark. They are not simply three coins lying together. They are arranged like a tower, with the widest coin on the bottom, a narrower coin above it, and an even narrower coin on top. The arrangement suggests that someone deliberately placed them there rather than allowing them to fall from a pocket.
A source teaches that scattered coins may be kept, but coins arranged like a tower must be announced. The Gemara raises a difficulty. What does “scattered coins” mean? It implies that only when they are scattered may they be kept, but if they are leaning on one another, perhaps they must be returned. Yet the source says that they must be arranged specifically like a tower. If they are merely lying haphazardly on one another, what is the ruling?
The Gemara answers that anything not arranged like a tower is considered scattered. “Scattered” does not mean that each coin must be lying in a completely different location. Even if the coins are lying on one another haphazardly, they are still considered scattered. The only case in which they must be returned is when their arrangement shows that someone deliberately placed them there. The coins have to be arranged in a recognizable formation, not merely touching one another.
The Gemara then discusses the number of different kings represented on the coins. Rabbi Hanina says that the requirement to announce the coins applies when the three coins bear the images of three different kings. If all three coins bear the image of the same king, one does not have to announce them.
In earlier times, the image of a king was placed on a coin. The reasoning would therefore be that three coins bearing the images of three different kings are unusual enough to constitute an identifying mark, whereas three coins bearing the same image are not.
The Gemara challenges this. If the coins are arranged like a tower, then even if they are all from the same king, why should that matter? The arrangement itself shows that someone placed them there. On the other hand, if they are scattered, then even if they bear the images of three different kings, why should that matter? The main issue should be whether they are arranged like a tower.
The Gemara therefore explains the statement differently. Even if all the coins bear the image of the same king, if they are different sizes, corresponding to coins minted by three different kings, their differences can create the identifying mark. The widest coin is on the ground, the medium-sized coin is on top of it, and the narrowest coin is on top of the middle coin. This arrangement shows that someone deliberately placed them there.
This is a far-fetched case. If you find three identical coins, such as three quarters, stacked on top of one another, that is not necessarily considered a tower in the technical sense. They may simply have fallen from someone’s pocket and landed on top of one another. But if the coins are of different widths and are arranged from widest to narrowest, that is the formation of a tower.
Rabbi Yohanan says that even an ordinary stack of coins of the same size must be announced. Since all three coins are lying one on top of the other, it is unusual for them to have fallen from a pocket and ended up in that arrangement. Therefore, even identical coins stacked one on top of another are considered to have an identifying mark.
The Gemara then asks what one announces. One cannot announce the identifying mark itself by saying, “I found coins stacked like a tower,” because then anyone could simply claim them. The Gemara says that one announces the number of coins. The owner can then provide the additional identifying mark by saying that they were arranged like a tower.
The Gemara asks why the Mishnah specifies three coins. If the identifying mark is the number, then even two coins resting on one another should be enough. The answer is that one does not announce the number. If one announced, “I found two coins,” that would not be sufficient, because everyone understands the plural term “coins” to mean at least two. Therefore, when the Mishnah discusses three coins, the owner must identify the fact that there were three and that they were stacked. If the finder were announcing the number explicitly, then two coins arranged together could also constitute an identifying mark.
The Gemara next discusses other arrangements of coins. Perhaps they were arranged in a circle, in a straight line, in a triangle, or like a ladder, with each coin placed above the next. The question is whether these formations show that someone deliberately placed the coins there or whether they could have fallen that way.
A teaching attributed to Abba bar Avuha states that whenever one could insert a stick beneath all the coins and lift them together in one motion, one must announce them. This applies to coins arranged like a ladder, because they are resting on one another. If a stick can be placed beneath them and all of them can be lifted together, the arrangement indicates that someone placed them there deliberately.
In the other arrangements, such as a circle or a straight line, the coins are not necessarily touching in a way that allows them to be lifted together. The principle is therefore that when the coins are stacked and touching in a particular formation, they must be announced. In other cases, there is no clear proof that someone deliberately placed them there.
The Gemara then raises a question regarding coins found arranged like the stones of Merkulis, an idolatrous formation in which stones were placed in a particular arrangement. The question is whether coins found in such an arrangement are considered deliberately placed and therefore must be announced.
A source describes stones arranged with one on the right, one on the left, and one in the middle above the other two. This demonstrates that such an arrangement is considered a deliberate formation. The question concerning coins arranged in the same way is therefore left for discussion in light of that comparison.
The Gemara then discusses a coin found in the marketplace. If another person comes and says, “That is my coin,” and offers as identifying marks that it was new, freshly minted, or that it bore the image of a particular king, those are not sufficient identifying marks. Every coin of that type bears the image of that king, and a newly minted coin is also not unique enough.
Even if the coin bears a person’s name, that is not necessarily an identifying mark. Everyone puts names on money, and money changes hands. Someone may have owned a coin bearing his name, spent it in the marketplace, and the finder may have received it from another person. The fact that the name appears on the coin does not prove that it belongs to the person claiming it.
For the same reason, if someone writes his name on a dollar bill and later another person finds it, the person cannot establish ownership merely by pointing to his name. Money is constantly transferred from one person to another, so the name alone is not proof.
The Mishnah then discusses a person who finds a lost object behind a fence made of wood or reeds, or behind a stone wall. It also discusses tied birds and birds found on the paths through the fields. In these cases, the Mishnah says that the finder should not touch them. We must wait for the Gemara to determine what the identifying mark is. Perhaps the way the birds are tied is an identifying mark.
If the object is covered, the finder should not touch it. The reason is that it may not actually be lost. Someone may have placed it there and intend to return for it. If the object is uncovered, however, the finder may have an obligation to take it and announce it.
The Gemara asks why the finder should not touch birds found behind a wall. The answer is that we assume that someone deliberately hid them there so that they would be watched. If the finder takes them, the owner will have no identifying mark by which to reclaim them. Birds are simply birds, and the owner may not be able to identify them. Therefore, as long as we can establish that they were deliberately placed there for safekeeping, we leave them in place and wait for the owner to return.
The Gemara asks why the finder cannot take them and announce them, allowing the owner to identify them by the way they were tied. Perhaps the knot itself is an identifying mark. The answer is that the birds were tied together by their wings, which is the ordinary way of tying birds. Since everyone ties birds in that manner, the knot is not an identifying mark.
Perhaps the place where the birds were found can serve as an identifying mark. The answer is that birds move around. They may jump from one place to another, so the location is not a reliable identifying mark. It is possible that the birds came from somewhere else. The Gemara considers this a situation of uncertainty: perhaps they were deliberately placed there, and perhaps they arrived there independently.
Since it is uncertain whether the birds were placed there or arrived on their own, what should the finder do? The answer is that he should leave them in place. If he leaves them there, the owner may still return and recover them. If he takes them, the owner may have no way to reclaim them. Therefore, one leaves them where they are.
If the finder has already taken them, he may not simply keep them. He must leave them in his courtyard until Elijah comes. This is the rule when there is uncertainty about whether an object is lost and no reliable identifying mark: once the finder has taken it, he holds it rather than using it, because the owner may eventually be able to establish ownership.
The Gemara then presents another apparent contradiction. We were taught that when an object is covered, the finder should leave it because someone deliberately placed it there. Yet another source teaches that if a person finds a vessel hidden in a garbage heap, he should take it and announce it. Why should he take a covered object from a garbage heap when he was told not to touch covered objects found behind a wall?
One answer distinguishes between different kinds of objects. The case in which one does not touch the object involves large vessels, such as cups and barrels, which a person is likely to have deliberately placed there and intend to retrieve. The case in which one takes the object involves small vessels, such as knives or other small implements, which may have accidentally fallen into the garbage while the owner was throwing things out.
Rashi explains that the small implement may have fallen from the owner’s pocket while he was disposing of garbage. The owner did not realize that it was lost. Therefore, the finder must recover it and announce it.
Large vessels are different. If a person placed cups or barrels in the garbage heap, we assume that he placed them there deliberately and intends to return for them. Since they are substantial objects, he would not normally throw them away accidentally. If the finder takes them, the owner may have no identifying mark by which to recover them, so the finder should leave them in place.
Another answer says that both cases involve cups and barrels, but the distinction depends on the type of garbage heap. In some places, the ordinary practice is to empty the heap into a larger dump. If the garbage heap is about to be emptied, the finder must rescue the object and announce it, because otherwise it will disappear into the larger dump and be lost. If the heap is not ordinarily emptied, the object may have been placed there deliberately, and the finder should leave it alone.
The Gemara questions this explanation. If the dump is regularly emptied, and a person placed an object there knowing that it would be thrown away, then he has deliberately abandoned it. Why would the finder have to announce it? If someone throws an object into a place where it will certainly be discarded, that is like throwing it into the ocean; he has given up ownership. The finder should be able to keep it.
The answer is that the owner may not have intended to abandon the object. The garbage heap may not ordinarily have been emptied, so he placed the object there intending to return for it. Later, the people responsible for the heap changed their practice and decided to empty it. When the finder sees that the heap is being emptied, he must rescue the object because the owner does not know that the circumstances have changed. The owner will return expecting to find it there.
This is how Rashi explains the teaching: ordinarily, the owners of the garbage heap may decide to empty it. A person who placed his object there may have expected it to remain in place, but the heap’s owners later changed their minds. Therefore, when the finder sees that the garbage is being removed, he must recover the object for its owner.
According to Rav Zvid’s explanation, however, the distinction is between large and small objects. His explanation does not depend on whether the heap is ordinarily emptied. The principle is that large vessels were deliberately placed there, while small vessels may have fallen accidentally from a person’s pocket while he was throwing out garbage.
According to that explanation, when the Gemara says that it is the normal practice of a garbage heap, it means that small vessels commonly fall out while a person is disposing of garbage. Therefore, when the finder sees a small vessel there, he should not assume that it was intentionally thrown away. The owner still wants it and has not relinquished it, so the finder must take it and announce it. Large vessels, by contrast, were placed there deliberately, and the owner is presumed to intend to return for them.