אַתְיָא לְאַחְלוּפֵי בְּרִאשׁוֹן! הָא קָא אָתֵי רֶגֶל שְׁלִישִׁי.

because perhaps one who hears him will come to confuse it with the first pilgrimage Festival? The Gemara answers: Confusing the second Festival with the first is not a problem, as in any case, won’t the finder come on the third pilgrimage Festival, thereby giving the owner another opportunity to recover his lost item?

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, כָּל מִי שֶׁמָּצָא אֲבֵידָה – הָיָה מַכְרִיז עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים, וְאַחַר רֶגֶל אַחֲרוֹן שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה וְיַחֲזוֹר שְׁלֹשָׁה וְיַכְרִיז יוֹם אֶחָד. מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בִּמְהֵרָה בְּיָמֵנוּ, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַכְרִיזִים בְּבָתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת. וּמִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָאַנָּסִים – הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מוֹדִיעִין לִשְׁכֵינָיו וְלִמְיוּדָעָיו, וְדַיּוֹ.

§ The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who found a lost item would proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, and will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day. But from the time that the Temple was destroyed, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, the Sages instituted that those who find lost items shall proclaim their finds in synagogues and study halls. And from the time that the oppressors proliferated, the Sages instituted an ordinance that one who finds a lost item shall inform his neighbors and acquaintances, and that will suffice for him.

מַאי מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָאַנָּסִין? דְּאָמְרִי: אֲבֵידְתָא לְמַלְכָּא. רַבִּי אַמִי אַשְׁכַּח אוּדְיָּיא דְּדִינָרֵי, חַזְיֵיהּ הַהוּא רוֹמָאָה דְּקָא מִירְתַּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שְׁקוֹל לְנַפְשָׁךְ, דְּלָאו פַּרְסָאֵי אֲנַן דְּאָמְרִי אֲבֵידְתָא לְמַלְכָּא.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: From the time that the oppressors proliferated? The Gemara answers: It is from the time that they say: A lost item belongs to the king. The Sages were concerned that any public proclamation would result in confiscation of the lost item. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami found a vessel full of dinars. A certain Roman saw that he was wary and hesitant to take it. The Roman said to him: Go, take it for yourself; as we are not Persians, who say that a lost item belongs to the king.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶבֶן טוֹעַן הָיְתָה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, כָּל מִי שֶׁאָבְדָה לוֹ אֲבֵידָה נִפְנֶה לְשָׁם, וְכָל מִי שֶׁמּוֹצֵא אֲבֵידָה נִפְנֶה לְשָׁם. זֶה עוֹמֵד וּמַכְרִיז, וְזֶה עוֹמֵד וְנוֹתֵן סִימָנִין וְנוֹטְלָהּ. וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אִם נִמְחֵת אֶבֶן הַטּוֹעַן.

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was a Claimant’s Stone in Jerusalem, and anyone who lost an item would be directed there and anyone who found a lost item would be directed there. This finder would stand and proclaim his find and that owner would stand and provide its distinguishing marks and take the item. And that is the place about which we learned in a mishna (Ta’anit 19a): Go and see if the Claimant’s Stone has been obscured by the rising water.

מתני׳ אָמַר אֶת הָאֲבֵידָה וְלֹא אָמַר סִימָנֶיהָ – לֹא יִתֵּן לוֹ. וְהָרַמַּאי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר סִימָנֶיהָ – לֹא יִתֵּן לוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״עַד דְּרֹשׁ אָחִיךָ אֹתוֹ״ – עַד שֶׁתִּדְרוֹשׁ אֶת אָחִיךָ, אִם רַמַּאי הוּא אִם אֵינוֹ רַמַּאי.

If a claimant accurately stated what type of item the lost item that was found by another is, but did not state, i.e., describe, its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give it to him. And in the case of a swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give the lost item to him, as it is stated: “And if your brother be not near you, and you know him not, then you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims [derosh] it [oto], and you shall return it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2). Would it enter your mind that the finder would give it to him before he claims it? How can the finder return it if he does not know the identity of the owner? Rather, the verb derosh is not referring to the claim of the owner; it is referring to the scrutiny performed by the finder. You shall not return the lost item until you scrutinize [shetidrosh] your brother to determine whether he, the claimant, is a swindler or whether he is not a swindler.

גמ׳ אִתְּמַר, רַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר: אֲבֵידְתָא מַכְרִיז, וְרַב נַחְמָן אֲמַר: גְּלִימָא מַכְרִיז.

It was stated that Rav Yehuda said: One who finds an item proclaims that he found a lost item without specifying its nature. And Rav Naḥman said: He specifies the nature of the item, e.g., he proclaims that he found a cloak.

רַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר: אֲבֵידְתָא מַכְרִיז, דְּאִי אָמְרַתְּ גְּלִימָא מַכְרִיז – חָיְישִׁינַן לְרַמַּאי.

Rav Yehuda said: One who finds an item proclaims that he found a lost item, as if you say that he proclaims that he found a cloak, we are concerned about the possibility that a swindler may attempt to claim the item. Perhaps the swindler learned that another person lost that item, and he will ascertain its distinguishing marks, provide those distinguishing marks, and claim the item.

רַב נַחְמָן אֲמַר: גְּלִימָא מַכְרִיז, לְרַמַּאי לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, דְּאִם כֵּן אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף.

Rav Naḥman said: The finder proclaims that he found a cloak, and we are not concerned about the possibility that a swindler may attempt to claim the item, as if so, there is no end to the matter. Even if the finder does not specify the nature of the item, perhaps a swindler would be able to guess its nature.

תְּנַן: אָמַר אֶת הָאֲבֵידָה וְלֹא אָמַר אֶת סִימָנֶיהָ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִתֵּן לוֹ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא אֲבֵידְתָא מַכְרִיז – הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן, אַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲמַר גְּלִימָא, כִּי לָא אֲמַר סִימָנִין – לָא מְהַדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ גְּלִימָא מַכְרִיז, אֲמַר אִיהוּ גְּלִימָא וַאֲמַר אִיהוּ גְּלִימָא, צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר כִּי לָא אֲמַר סִימָנִין לָא מְהַדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ?

The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in the mishna: If a claimant accurately states what type of item the lost item that was found by another is, but did not state its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give it to him. Granted, if you say the finder proclaims that he found an unspecified lost item, this mishna teaches us that even though the claimant indeed stated that the lost item is a cloak, as long as he did not state its distinguishing marks, we do not return it to him. But if you say that the finder proclaims that he found a cloak, if the finder stated that he found a cloak and the claimant stated that he lost a cloak, does it need to be said that when he did not state its distinguishing marks, we do not return it to him?

אֲמַר רַב סָפְרָא: לְעוֹלָם גְּלִימָא מַכְרִיז. אֲמַר אִיהוּ גְּלִימָא, וַאֲמַר אִיהוּ סִימָנִין. וּמַאי לֹא אָמַר אֶת סִימָנֶיהָ – לֹא אָמַר סִימָנִין מוּבְהָקִין דִּידָהּ.

Rav Safra said: Actually, one could say that the finder proclaims that he found a cloak, and the mishna is referring to a case where the finder stated that he found a cloak, and the claimant stated its distinguishing marks. And what is the meaning of the phrase in the mishna: If he did not state its distinguishing marks? It means: If he did not state its clear-cut distinguishing marks but rather stated distinguishing marks that are not exclusive to the item. Therefore, he does not prove his ownership.

״וְהָרַמַּאי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר אֶת סִימָנֶיהָ הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִתֵּן לוֹ״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה כָּל מִי שֶׁאָבְדָה לוֹ אֲבֵידָה – הָיָה נוֹתֵן סִימָנִין וְנוֹטְלָהּ. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָרַמָּאִין, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: צֵא וְהָבֵא עֵדִים דְּלָאו רַמַּאי אַתְּ, וְטוֹל.

§ The mishna teaches: And in the case of a swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give the lost item to him. The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who lost an item would provide its distinguishing marks and take it. But when the swindlers proliferated, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the finders will say to him: Go and bring witnesses who can testify that you are not a swindler, and take your item.

כִּי הָא דַּאֲבוּהּ דְּרַב פַּפָּא אִירְכַּס לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא וְאַשְׁכַּחוּהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי סָהֲדֵי דְּלָאו רַמַּאי אַתְּ, וְטוֹל. אֲזַל אַיְיתִי סָהֲדֵי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: יָדְעִיתוּן בֵּיהּ דְּרַמַּאי הוּא? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אִין. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא רַמָּאָה אֲנָא? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אֲנַן לָאו רַמַּאי אַתְּ קָאָמְרִינַן. אֲמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא, לָא מַיְיתֵי אִינִישׁ חוֹבָתָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.

The Gemara relates: This is as in that incident involving the father of Rav Pappa, who lost a donkey and others found it. He came before Rabba bar Rav Huna to reclaim his donkey. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the father of Rav Pappa: Go and bring witnesses who can testify that you are not a swindler, and you may take your donkey. The father of Rav Pappa went and brought witnesses. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the witnesses: Do you know about him that he is a swindler? The witnesses said: Yes. Rav Pappa’s father said, incredulously, to the witnesses: I am a swindler? The witnesses said to him: We were saying that you are not a swindler. They had thought the question was if he was not a swindler, and therefore responded in the affirmative. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is reasonable to conclude that the witnesses actually intended to support Rav Pappa’s father, because presumably, a person does not bring condemnation upon himself; Rav Pappa’s father would not have volunteered to provide witnesses who would testify against him.

מתני׳ כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה וְאוֹכֵל – יַעֲשֶׂה וְיֹאכַל, וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה וְאוֹכֵל – יִמָּכֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַהֲשֵׁבוֹתוֹ לוֹ״ – רְאֵה הֵיאַךְ תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ.

If one finds any living being that works and generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats, it shall work and eat while in the finder’s possession. And any living being that does not work but it does eat shall be sold, as it is stated: “Then you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims it, and you shall return it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2), see how best to return it to him. Since the owner must repay the finder for his expenditures, if feeding the animal costs more than its value, the finder’s keep- ing the animal in his possession will prevent the owner from recovering it.

מַה יְּהֵא בַּדָּמִים? רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבְדוּ חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבְדוּ אֵין חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן.

What shall be done with the money received from the sale of the animal? Rabbi Tarfon says: The finder may use it; therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it. Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money; therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it.

גמ׳ וּלְעוֹלָם? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. תַּנְיָא נַמִי הָכִי: כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה וְאוֹכֵל, כְּגוֹן פָּרָה וַחֲמוֹר – מְטַפֵּל בָּהֶן עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – שָׁם דְּמֵיהֶן וּמַנִּיחָן.

The mishna teaches that an animal that generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats shall work and eat while in the finder’s possession. The Gemara asks: And must he care for the animal forever? Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: He cares for the animal until twelve months pass. This is also taught in a baraita: If one finds any living being that works and generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats, e.g., a cow or a donkey, he tends to them until twelve months pass. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.

עֲגָלִים וּסְיָיחִין מְטַפֵּל בָּהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲדָשִׁים, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – שָׁם דְּמֵיהֶן וּמַנִּיחָן. אַוָּוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין מְטַפֵּל בָּהֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – שָׁם דְּמֵיהֶן וּמַנִּיחָן.

If one finds calves and foals, which are young and unfit for labor, he tends to them for three months, as they do not earn their keep. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds geese and roosters, he tends to them for thirty days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת כִּבְהֵמָה גַסָּה. תַּנְיָא נַמִי הָכִי: תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת וּבְהֵמָה גַסָּה מְטַפֵּל בָּהֶן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – שָׁם דְּמֵיהֶן וּמַנִּיחָן. עֲגָלִים וּסְיָיחִין מְטַפֵּל בָּהֶן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – שָׁם דְּמֵיהֶן וּמַנִּיחָן. אַוָּוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁטִּיפּוּלוֹ מְרוּבֶּה מִשְּׂכָרוֹ – מְטַפֵּל בָּהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – שָׁם דְּמֵיהֶן וּמַנִּיחָן.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The legal status of a chicken is like that of a large domesticated animal in that the eggs it lays suffice to cover the cost of its food, and therefore the finder keeps it for twelve months. This is also taught in a baraita: If one finds a chicken and a large domesticated animal, he tends to them for twelve months. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds calves and foals, he tends to them for thirty days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds geese and roosters and anything that costs more to tend to than the revenue generated by it, he tends to them for three days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.

קַשְׁיָא עֲגָלִים וּסְיָיחִין אַעֲגָלִים וּסְיָיחִין, אַוָּוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין אַאַוָּוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין!

The Gemara asks: It is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps calves and foals for three months and the ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps calves and foals for thirty days; and there is another contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps geese and roosters for thirty days, and the ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps geese and roosters for three days.

עֲגָלִים וּסְיָיחִין אַעֲגָלִים וּסְיָיחִין לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא – דְּרַעֲיָא, וְהָא – דְּפִטּוּמָא.

The Gemara answers: The contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita with regard to calves and foals and the ruling in the second baraita with regard to calves and foals is not difficult. This ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps them for three months is referring to calves and foals that graze in the pasture, and that ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps them for thirty days is referring to calves and foals that need to be fattened and therefore require greater exertion on the part of the one who finds them.

אַוָּוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין אַאַוָּוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין נַמִי לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא – בְּרַבְרְבֵי, הָא – בְּזוּטְרֵי.

The contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita with regard to geese and roosters and the ruling in the second baraita with regard to geese and roosters is also not difficult. This ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps them for thirty days is referring to large geese and roosters, which do not require great exertion, and that ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps them for three days is referring to small geese and roosters, which require great exertion.

״וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה וְאוֹכֵל״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וַהֲשֵׁבוֹתוֹ לוֹ״ – רְאֵה הֵיאַךְ תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא יַאֲכִיל עֵגֶל לַעֲגָלִים, וּסְיָח לִסְיָיחִין, אַוְוזָא לְאַוָּוזִין, וְתַרְנְגוֹל לְתַרְנְגוֹלִין.

The mishna teaches: And any living being that does not work but it does eat shall be sold. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall return it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2), indicating that the finder must see how best to return it to him, meaning that one shall not feed the value of a calf to the lost calves that he is tending, nor the value of a foal to the lost foals that he is tending, nor the value of a goose to the geese that he is tending, nor the value of a rooster to the roosters that he is tending. Were the finder to do so, ultimately, the owner would receive nothing.

״מַה יְהֵא בַּדָּמִים? רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ״ וכו׳. עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי

§ The mishna teaches: What shall be done with the money received from the sale of the animal? Rabbi Tarfon says: The finder may use it; therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for its loss. Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money. Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution. The Gemara analyzes the tannaitic dispute: Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree