כְּאַבְנֵי בֵּית קוּלִיס מַהוּ?

If they were configured like the stones of the house of worship dedicated to the Roman deity Mercury, what is the halakha?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: מָצָא מָעוֹת מְפוּזָּרוֹת – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, כְּאַבְנֵי בֵּית קוּלִיס – חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן אַבְנֵי בֵּית קוּלִיס: אַחַת מִכָּאן וְאַחַת מִכָּאן וְאַחַת עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma. As it is taught in a baraita: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him. If they were configured like the stones of the house of worship dedicated to Mercury, he is obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara explains: And these are coins that were configured like the stones of the house of worship dedicated to Mercury: One was situated here on one side, and one was situated there alongside it, and one was situated atop the two of them.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמּוֹצֵא סֶלַע בַּשּׁוּק, וּמְצָאוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר שֶׁלִּי הִיא, חֲדָשָׁה הִיא, נֵירוֹנִית הִיא, שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ פְּלוֹנִי הִיא – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שְׁמוֹ כָּתוּב עָלֶיהָ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין סִימָן לַמַּטְבֵּעַ, דְּאָמַר דִּלְמָא אַפּוּקֵי אַפְּקָא, וּמֵאִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא נָפַל.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who finds a sela coin in the marketplace and another person finds him and says: It is mine, and the distinguishing mark is that it is new, or that it is a coin minted by the emperor Nero, or that it is minted by king so-and-so, he has not said anything and the finder need not give him the sela. Moreover, even if his name is written on the sela he has not said anything, due to the fact that there is no distinguishing mark for a coin that is effective in its recovery, as the finder says: Perhaps he spent the coin and it fell from another person.

מתני׳ מָצָא אַחַר הַגַּפָּה אוֹ אַחַר הַגָּדֵר גּוֹזָלוֹת מְקוּשָּׁרִים, אוֹ בַּשְּׁבִילִין שֶׁבַּשָּׂדוֹת – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן. מָצָא כְּלִי בְּאַשְׁפָּה, אִם מְכוּסֶּה – לֹא יִגַּע בּוֹ, אִם מְגוּלֶּה – נוֹטֵל וּמַכְרִיז.

If one found, behind a wooden fence or behind a stone fence, bound fledglings, or if he found them in the paths that run through fields, he may not touch them, as they were certainly placed there intentionally. In a case where one found a vessel in a garbage dump, if it is concealed, he may not touch it, as a person certainly concealed it there. If it is exposed, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find.

גמ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמְרִינַן: הָנֵי אֱינָשׁ אַצְנַעִינְהוּ, וְאִי שָׁקֵיל לְהוּ – לֵית לְהוּ לְמָרַיְיהוּ סִימָנָא בְּגַוַּויְיהוּ, הִלְכָּךְ לְשַׁבְקִינְהוּ עַד דְּאָתֵי מָרַיְיהוּ וְשָׁקֵיל לְהוּ.

What is the reason that one may not touch the fledglings? The Gemara answers: The reason is that we say with regard to these birds: A person concealed them, and if one takes them, their owner has no distinguishing mark on them that would enable him to reclaim them. Therefore, let the finder leave the birds in place until their owner comes and takes them.

וְאַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי קֶשֶׁר סִימָנָא! אֲמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָא אֲמַר רַב: בִּמְקוּשָּׁרִין בְּכַנְפֵיהֶן, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הָכִי מְקַטְרִי לְהוּ.

The Gemara asks: But why? Let the knot binding them serve as their distinguishing mark. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: This is a case where the birds were bound at their wings. Since everyone binds them in that manner, the knot binding the birds is not a distinguishing mark.

וְלֶהֱוֵי מָקוֹם סִימָן! אֲמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: בִּמְדַדִּין. אִי בִּמְדַדִּין – מֵעָלְמָא אָתוּ, וּמוּתָּרִין!

The Gemara asks: And let their location serve as their distinguishing mark. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: This is a case where the birds hop and do not remain in place. The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the birds hop, perhaps the birds came to that location from elsewhere and it is permitted for the finder to keep them.

אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מֵעָלְמָא אָתוּ, וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר אֱינָשׁ אַצְנַעִינְהוּ, וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ סְפֵק הִינּוּחַ, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָא אָמַר רַב: כָּל סְפֵק הִינּוּחַ – לְכַתְחִילָּה לֹא יִטּוֹל, וְאִם נָטַל – לֹא יַחֲזִיר.

The Gemara answers: It can be said that the birds came from elsewhere and it can be said that a person concealed them, and the result is uncertainty with regard to whether the placement of the birds was deliberate, i.e., whether or not they are lost items. And Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says that Rav says: In any case of uncertainty as to whether the placement of an item was deliberate, one may not take it ab initio. And if he took it, he need not return it.

״מָצָא כְּלִי בְּאַשְׁפָּה, מְכוּסֶּה לֹא יִגַּע בּוֹ, מְגוּלֶּה – נוֹטֵל וּמַכְרִיז״. וּרְמִינְהוּ: מָצָא כְּלִי טָמוּן בְּאַשְׁפָּה – נוֹטֵל וּמַכְרִיז, שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ אַשְׁפָּה לְפַנּוֹת!

§ The mishna teaches: In a case where one found a vessel in a garbage dump, if it is concealed, he may not touch it, as a person certainly concealed it there. If it is exposed, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If one found a vessel concealed in a garbage dump, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find, because it is routine for a garbage dump to be cleared. Therefore, presumably it was not placed there; rather, it is a lost item and one is obligated to proclaim his find.

אֲמַר רַב זְבִיד: לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא – בְּכוּבֵי וְכָסֵי, הָא – בְּסַכִּינֵי וְהַמְנִיק. בְּכוּבֵי וְכָסֵי – לֹא יִגַּע, בְּסַכִּינֵי וְהַמְנִיק – נוֹטֵל וּמַכְרִיז.

Rav Zevid said that this is not difficult: This mishna is referring to containers or cups. That baraita is referring to knives or a fork [vehamnik]. The Gemara elaborates: In the case of containers or cups, which are large, it is inconceivable that they fell there inadvertently, so he may not touch them. In the case of knives or forks, which are small, there is room for uncertainty as to whether it was placed there or whether it fell, so the finder takes the item and proclaims his find.

רַב פַּפָּא אֲמַר: הָא וְהָא בְּכוּבֵי וְכָסֵי, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן – בְּאַשְׁפָּה הָעֲשׂוּיָה לְפַנּוֹת, כָּאן – בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְפַנּוֹת.

Rav Pappa said: Both this baraita and that mishna are referring to containers and cups, and nevertheless, it is not difficult: Here, the baraita is referring to a garbage dump that is designed to be cleared; therefore, he must take the vessel and proclaim his find to prevent it from being cleared with the garbage. There, the mishna is referring to a garbage dump that is not designed to be cleared; as it is possible that the owner placed it there, the finder may not touch it.

אַשְׁפָּה הָעֲשׂוּיָה לְפַנּוֹת אֲבֵידָה מִדַּעַת הִיא! אֶלָּא, בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְפַנּוֹת, וְנִמְלַךְ עָלֶיהָ לְפַנּוֹתָהּ.

The Gemara asks: How could one be obligated to proclaim his find of a vessel in a garbage dump that is designed to be cleared? Even if the owner of the vessel concealed it there, it is a deliberate loss and the owner renounced ownership of the vessel. The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita is referring to a garbage dump that is not designed to be cleared, and the owner of the land reconsidered and decided to clear it.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב פַּפָּא – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ אַשְׁפָּה לְפַנּוֹת, אֶלָּא לְרַב זְבִיד מַאי שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ אַשְׁפָּה לְפַנּוֹת? שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ אַשְׁפָּה לְפַנּוֹת לָהּ כֵּלִים קְטַנִּים.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rav Pappa, this is the reason that the tanna teaches in the baraita: He takes it and proclaims his find, because it is routine for a garbage dump to be cleared, as the ruling is dependent on whether the dump is ultimately cleared. But according to Rav Zevid, the reason for the ruling in the baraita is that the utensils found were knives and forks. What is the relevance of the statement in the baraita: Because it is routine for a garbage dump to be cleared? The Gemara answers that according to Rav Zevid, it means: Because it is routine for a garbage dump to inadvertently have small utensils cleared, i.e., discarded, into it.

מתני׳ מָצָא בְּגַל וּבְכוֹתֶל יָשָׁן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. מָצָא בְּכוֹתֶל חָדָשׁ, מֵחֶצְיוֹ וְלַחוּץ – שֶׁלּוֹ, מֵחֶצְיוֹ וְלִפְנִים – שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. אִם הָיָה מַשְׂכִּירוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים – אֲפִילּוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ.

If one found lost items in a heap of stone rubble or in an old wall, these belong to him. If one found lost items in a new wall from its midpoint and outward, they belong to him. If he found the items from its midpoint and inward, they belong to the homeowner. If the homeowner would rent the house to others on a regular basis and there was a steady turnover of residents, even if one found lost items inside the house, these belong to him. Since the owner of the lost items cannot be identified based on location, he will certainly despair of recovering his lost items.

גמ׳ תָּנָא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: שֶׁל אֱמוֹרִיִּים הֵן. אַטּוּ אֱמוֹרִים מַצְנַעֵי, יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא מַצְנַעֵי? לָא צְרִיכָא

The mishna teaches that if one found a lost item in a heap of rubble or in an old wall it belongs to him. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is his due to the fact that when the owner of the heap or wall claims the property, the finder can say to him: They belong to the Amorites, who lived in Eretz Yisrael before it was conquered by the Jews. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Amorites conceal items but Jews do not conceal items? Per- haps it was the homeowner who placed the item in the wall or the heap. The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is necessary only in the specific case