וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן, מִי קָתָנֵי הֵן שֶׁלּוֹ? ״אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז״ קָתָנֵי, וְיַנִּיחַ וְיֵיתֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָהֵיב בֵּיהּ סִימָנָא, וְשָׁקֵיל.

And if you wish, say instead that actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Is it taught in the mishna that the items are his? It is taught that he is not obligated to proclaim his find. He may not keep them, but he shall place the items in his possession and a Jew will come and provide a distinguishing mark to describe the items and take them.

תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִי: מָצָא חָבִית יַיִן בְּעִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ נָכְרִים – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם מְצִיאָה, וַאֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה. בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַן בָּהּ סִימָן – מוּתֶּרֶת בִּשְׁתִיָּה לְמוֹצְאָהּ.

Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Asi says: If one found a barrel of wine in a city whose population has a majority of gentiles, keeping the barrel is permitted in terms of the halakhot of finding lost items because it presumably belonged to a gentile, and deriving benefit from the wine is prohibited, as it is presumed to be wine of a gentile. If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, drinking the wine is permitted for its finder, as it proved to be the wine of a Jew. Nevertheless, it belongs to the finder, because the owner despaired of recovering a barrel misplaced in a public area.

כְּמַאן – כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – בְּרוֹב נָכְרִים, אֲבָל בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל – לָא. לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לְךָ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נַמִי קָאָמַר, וְרַב אַסִי סָבַר לָהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפָלֵיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.

The Gemara explains the proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement of Rav Asi? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Conclude from it that when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated his opinion, it was only with regard to a place where there is a majority of gentiles; but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, the owner does not despair of recovering his lost item. The Gemara rejects the proof: Actually, I will say to you that even with regard to a place where there is a majority of Jews, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar also stated his opinion, and Rav Asi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in one case, that of a place where there is a majority of gentiles, and disagrees with him in one case, that of a place where there is a majority of Jews.

וְכִי מֵאַחַר דַּאֲסִירָא בַּהֲנָאָה, מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם מְצִיאָה לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: לְקַנְקַנָּהּ.

The Gemara clarifies: And once it was established that deriving benefit from the wine is prohibited, then with regard to the fact that it is permitted in terms of the halakhot of finding lost items, for what matter is that halakha relevant? Rav Ashi said: It is relevant with regard to deriving benefit from its container, which is permitted.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַשְׁכַּח אַרְבָּעָה זוּזֵי דְּצַיְּירִי בִּסְדִינָא וּשְׁדוּ בִּנְהַר בִּירָן. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַכְרִיז. וְהָא זוּטוֹ שֶׁל יָם הוּא! שָׁאנֵי נְהַר בִּירָן, כֵּיוָן דְּמִתְקִיל לָא מִיַּאַשׁ. וְהָא רוּבָּא נָכְרִים נִינְהוּ, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב נָכְרִים! שָׁאנֵי נְהַר בִּירָן, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל סָכְרוּ לֵיהּ, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּרוּ לֵיהּ. כֵּיוָן דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל סָכְרוּ לֵיהּ – אֵימוּר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל נְפַל, וְכֵיוָן דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּרוּ לֵיהּ – לָא מִיַּאַשׁ.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who found four dinars that were bound in a cloth and cast into the Biran River. He came before Rav Yehuda and asked how to proceed. Rav Yehuda said: Go proclaim your finding. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it a case of an item lost in the tide of the sea that should therefore belong to the finder? The Gemara answers: The Biran River is different. Since it contains obstacles, the owner does not despair of recovering the lost item. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it a place where the majority of the population is gentiles? Conclude from it that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of gentiles. The Gemara answers: The Biran River is different, as Jews dammed it and Jews dredge it. Since Jews dammed it, say that the coins fell from a Jew, and since Jews dredge it, the owner of the coins does not despair of recovering them.

רַב יְהוּדָה הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל וְאָזֵיל בַּתְרֵיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשׁוּקָא דְּבֵי דַיְסָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָצָא כָּאן אַרְנָקֵי מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַן בָּהּ סִימָן מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַיָּיב לְהַחֲזִיר. תַּרְתֵּי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין. כִּי הָא דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אַשְׁכַּח הָנָךְ חֲמָרֵי בְּמַדְבְּרָא, וְאַהַדְּרִינְהוּ לְמָרַיְיהוּ לְבָתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא, לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין.

The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda was moving along behind Mar Shmuel in the market where pounded grain was sold. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: If one found a purse [arnakei] here, what is the halakha? said to him that the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rav Yehuda asked him: If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: The finder is obligated to return it. Rav Yehuda asked: These are two contradictory rulings. Shmuel said to him: By law, it belongs to him. When I said the finder is obligated to return it if he learns the identity of the owner, that was beyond the letter of the law. This is like that incident where Shmuel’s father found these donkeys in the desert and returned them to their owner after the passage of twelve months of the year, as he acted beyond the letter of the law.

רָבָא הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל וְאָזֵיל בַּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בְּשׁוּקָא דְּגִלְדָאֵי, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ בְּשׁוּקָא דְּרַבָּנַן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָצָא כָּאן אַרְנָקֵי מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַן בָּהּ סִימָן מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וַהֲלֹא עוֹמֵד וְצוֹוֵחַ! נַעֲשָׂה כְּצוֹוֵחַ עַל בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל, וְעַל סְפִינָתוֹ שֶׁטָּבְעָה בַּיָּם.

The Gemara relates: Rava was moving along behind Rav Naḥman in the tanner’s market, and some say in the marketplace frequented by the Sages. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: If one found a purse here, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman said to him that the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rava asked him: If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman said to him that in this case as well, the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rava asked: But isn’t the owner justifiably standing and screaming that the purse belongs to him? Rav Naḥman said to him: He becomes as one who screams to no avail about his house that collapsed or about his ship that sank in the sea.

הַהוּא דַּיּוֹ דְּשָׁקֵיל בִּשְׂרָא בְּשׁוּקָא, וְשַׁדְיֵהּ בְּצִנִיָּיתָא דְּבֵי בַּר מָרְיוֹן. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבַּיֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שְׁקוֹל לְנַפְשָׁךְ. וְהָא רוּבָּא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נִינְהוּ, שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינָּהּ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל! שָׁאנֵי דַּיּוֹ, דִּכְזוּטוֹ שֶׁל יָם דָּמֵי. וְהָא אָמַר רַב: בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּתְעַלֵּם מִן הָעַיִן אָסוּר! בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain kite that took meat in the marketplace and cast it among the palm trees of the house of bar Maryon. The one who found the meat came before Abaye to ask how to proceed. Abaye said to him: Go take it for yourself. The Gemara asks: But isn’t the marketplace of kosher meat a place where there is a majority of Jews? Conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. The Gemara answers: A kite is different, as an item taken by a kite is similar to a lost item swept away in the tide of the sea. The Gemara raises another issue: But doesn’t Rav say: Meat that was obscured from sight and unsupervised for a period of time is forbidden, as its source is unknown? The Gemara answers: This is a case where the finder stands and sees the meat from the moment that it was taken by the kite until it was cast among the trees.

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מָצָא גְּדִי שָׁחוּט בֵּין טִבֶּרְיָא לְצִיפּוֹרִי וְהִתִּירוּהוּ לוֹ. אֲמַר רַבִּי אַמִי: הִתִּירוּהוּ לוֹ מִשּׁוּם מְצִיאָה – כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, מִשּׁוּם שְׁחִיטָה – כְּרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁאָבְדוּ לוֹ גְּדָיָיו וְתַרְנְגוֹלָיו הָלַךְ וּמְצָאָן שְׁחוּטִין – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר, וְרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מַתִּיר.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina found a slaughtered young goat between Tiberias and Tzippori and the Sages permitted it to him. Rabbi Ami said: The Sages permitted it to him in terms of the halakhot of finding lost items in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and they permitted it to him in terms of the halakhot of the slaughter of kosher animals, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. As it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one’s young goats and roosters were lost, and the owner went and found them slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda deems the meat forbidden, and Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, deems it permitted.

אֲמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כְּשֶׁמְּצָאָן בְּאַשְׁפָּה, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי כְּשֶׁמְּצָאָן בַּבַּיִת. מִדְּהִתִּירוּהוּ לוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁחִיטָה – רוּבָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל נִינְהוּ, שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינָּהּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל! אֲמַר רָבָא: רוֹב נָכְרִים וְרוֹב טַבָּחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in a case where he found the slaughtered animals in a garbage dump, as the concern is that they were thrown away because the slaughter was unfit. And the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct in a case where he found them in the house. The Gemara infers: From the fact that the Sages permitted the meat to him in terms of the halakhot of slaughter, apparently, this place is one where there is a majority of Jews. Conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. Rava said: It is a place where there is a majority of gentiles but the majority of slaughterers are Jews.

רַבִּי אַמִי אַשְׁכַּח פַּרְגִּיּוֹת שְׁחוּטוֹת בֵּין טִבֶּרְיָא לְצִיפּוֹרִי, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִי, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ בֵּי מִדְרָשָׁא. וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: זִיל שְׁקוֹל לְנַפְשָׁךְ. רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא אַשְׁכַּח קִיבּוּרָא דְּאָזְלִי בֵּיהּ אַזְלוּיֵי, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ בְּבֵי מִדְרָשָׁא, וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: זִיל שְׁקוֹל לְנַפְשָׁךְ.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami found slaughtered fledglings between Tiberias and Tzippori. He came before Rabbi Asi to ask how to proceed, and some say he came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, and some say he came to the study hall. And they said to him: Go take it for yourself. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa found a skein of thread from which a net was woven. He came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to ask how to proceed, and some say he came to the study hall. And they said to him: Go take it for yourself, because he found it in a place frequented by the multitudes.

מתני׳ וְאֵלּוּ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז: מָצָא פֵּירוֹת בִּכְלִי, אוֹ כְּלִי כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא, מָעוֹת בְּכִיס, אוֹ כִּיס כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא, צִבּוּרֵי פֵירוֹת, צִבּוּרֵי מָעוֹת,

And for these found items, one is obligated to proclaim his find: If one found produce inside a vessel, or a vessel by itself; coins inside a pouch, or a pouch by itself; piles of produce; piles of coins,