וּבְאוּשְׁפִּיזָא. מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ אֲבֵידְתָּא בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא. אִי יָדְעִינַן בֵּיהּ דְּלָא מְשַׁנֵּי אֶלָּא בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת – מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ, וְאִי מְשַׁנֵּי בְּמִילֵּי אַחֲרִינֵי – לָא מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ.
And he can lie with regard to a host [ushpiza], as one may say that he was not well received by a certain host to prevent everyone from taking advantage of the host’s hospitality. What is the practical difference that emerges from this statement with regard to matters in which Torah scholars deviate from the truth? Mar Zutra says: The practical difference is with regard to returning a lost item on the basis of visual recognition. If we know about him that he alters his statements only with regard to these three matters, we return the lost item to him, but if he alters his statements with regard to other matters, we do not return the lost item to him.
מָר זוּטְרָא חֲסִידָא אִגְּנִיב לֵיהּ כָּסָא דְכַסְפָּא מֵאוּשְׁפִּיזָא. חַזְיֵאּ לְהָהוּא בַּר בֵּי רַב דְּמָשֵׁי יְדֵיהּ וְנָגֵיב בִּגְלִימָא דְחַבְרֵיהּ. אֲמַר: הַיְינוּ הַאי דְּלָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ אַמָּמוֹנָא דְחַבְרֵיהּ. כַּפְתֵיהּ וְאוֹדִי.
The Gemara relates: A silver goblet was stolen from the host of Mar Zutra Ḥasida. Mar Zutra saw a certain student of Torah who washed his hands and dried them on the cloak of another. Mar Zutra said: This is the one who does not care about the property of another. He bound that student, and the student then confessed that he stole the goblet.
תַּנְיָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בְּכֵלִים חֲדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן שֶׁחַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן כֵּלִים חֲדָשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא שְׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז, כְּגוֹן בַּדֵּי מְחָטִין, וְצִינּוֹרִיּוֹת, וּמַחְרוֹזוֹת שֶׁל קַרְדּוּמּוֹת. כׇּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֵימָתַי מוּתָּרִים? בִּזְמַן שֶׁמְּצָאָן אֶחָד אֶחָד, אֲבָל מְצָאָן שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם – חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז.
It is taught in a baraita: Although Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that one does not need to proclaim his finding of anpurya vessels, he concedes that the finder is obligated to proclaim his find of new vessels that the eye of its purchaser has sufficiently seen. And these are new vessels that the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen and concerning which the finder is not obligated to proclaim his find: for example, branches [badei] upon which needles or utensils for spinning are hanging, or strings of axes. When is it permitted for the one who finds all those items that the tanna mentioned in the baraita to keep them? It is when he found them one at a time. But if he found them two at a time, the finder is obligated to proclaim his find.
מַאי ״בַּדֵּי״? שׂוֹכֵי. וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בַּדֵּי״? דָּבָר דְּתָלוּ בֵּיהּ מִידֵּי, ״בַּד״ קָרוּ לֵיהּ. כִּי הַהוּא דִּתְנַן הָתָם: עָלֶה אֶחָד בְּבַד אֶחָד.
The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of the term badei? It means branches. And why did the tanna call them branches? It is because the item upon which one hangs another item [davar detalu bei midei], he calls it a branch, like that which we learned there (Sukka 44b): One leaf on one branch.
וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַמַּצִּיל מִן הָאֲרִי וּמִן הַדּוֹב וּמִן הַנָּמֵר וּמִן הַבַּרְדְּלָס וּמִן זוֹטוֹ שֶׁל יָם וּמִשְּׁלוּלִיתוֹ שֶׁל נָהָר, הַמּוֹצֵא בִּסְרַטְיָא וּפְלַטְיָא גְּדוֹלָה, וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִתְיָאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן.
§ The baraita continues: And likewise, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: In the case of one who rescues a lost item from a lion, or from a bear, or from a leopard, or from a cheetah [bardelas], or from the tide of the sea, or from the flooding of a river; and in the case of one who finds a lost item in a main thoroughfare [seratya] or a large plaza [pelatya], or in any place where the multitudes are found, these items belong to him due to the fact that the owner despairs of their recovery.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם אֲבָל בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל – לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי אָמַר?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that if one finds a lost item in any place where multitudes are found, the item belongs to him, did he refer only 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 the item, because he relies on the Jews to return his item? Or perhaps, even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, he also says that the item belongs to the one who found it.
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי אָמַר, פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ, אוֹ לָא פְּלִיגִי?
And if you say that even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, he also said that the item belongs to the one who found it, do the Rabbis disagree with him or do they not disagree?
וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי, בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל וַדַּאי פְּלִיגִי, בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם פְּלִיגִי אוֹ לָא פְּלִיגִי?
And if you say that the Rabbis disagree with him, in a place where there is a majority of Jews, they certainly disagree. In a place where there is a majority of gentiles, do the Rabbis disagree, or do they not disagree?
וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ?
And if you say that the Rabbis disagree with him even in a place where there is a majority of gentiles, is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion?
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, דַּוְקָא בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם אוֹ אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל?
And if you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, does this halakha apply specifically in a place where there is a majority of gentiles, or is the halakha in accordance with his opinion even in a place where there is a majority of Jews?
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמּוֹצֵא מָעוֹת בְּבָתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת, וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִתְיָאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: In the case of one who finds coins in synagogues [bevatei khenesiyyot] and study halls or in any place where the multitudes are found, these coins belong to him, due to the fact that the owner despairs of their recovery. Who is the one about whom you heard that he follows the multitudes, i.e., that he attaches significance to the loss of an item in a place where the multitudes are present? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Conclude from the baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that a lost item belongs to the finder even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, as synagogues and study halls are places frequented exclusively by Jews.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בִּמְפוּזָּרִין. אִי בִּמְפוּזָּרִין מַאי אִרְיָא מָקוֹם שֶׁהָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם? אֲפִילּוּ אֵין הָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם!
The Gemara rejects the proof. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the coins are scattered and there is no distinguishing mark on them. The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the coins are scattered, why did the baraita establish the case specifically in a place where the multitudes are found? Even in a place where the multitudes are not found, the coins belong to the finder.
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם בִּצְרוּרִין, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּבָתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, בָּתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בָּתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת דִּידַן דְּיָתְבִי בְּהוּ גּוֹיִם. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת נָמֵי דִּידַן דְּיָתְבִי בְּהוּ נָכְרִים.
Rather, actually the baraita is referring to a case where the coins are bound, and with what are we dealing here? This is a case where the coins were found in the houses of assembly [bevatei khenesiyyot] of gentiles, not in synagogues. That resolves the matter of synagogues; but with regard to study halls, which are exclusive to Jews, what can be said? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to our study halls in which gentile guards or custodians are sitting. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, the batei khenesiyyot in the baraita can be explained as referring to our synagogues, in which gentiles are sitting.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מָצָא בָּהּ אֲבֵידָה, אִם רוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז, אִם רוֹב גּוֹיִם – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ: כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם, אֲבָל בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל – לָא!
Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Makhshirin 2:8): In a case when one found a lost item in a city where both Jews and gentiles reside, if the city has a majority of Jews he is obligated to proclaim his find. If there is a majority of gentiles he is not obligated to proclaim his find. Who is the one about whom you heard that he follows the multitudes, i.e., that he attaches significance to the loss of an item in a place where the multitudes are present? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Resolve from this mishna that when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that the item belongs to the finder, it is referring specifically to a place where there is a majority of gentiles, but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, no, it does not belong to the finder.
מַנִּי? רַבָּנַן הִיא, תִּפְשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ דְּמוֹדוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם.
The Gemara rejects this proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara suggests: In any case, resolve the dilemma from the mishna that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in a place where there is a majority of gentiles.
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי. וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּטָמוּן. אִי בְּטָמוּן, מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ?! וְהָתְנַן: מָצָא כְּלִי בָּאַשְׁפָּה, מְכוּסֶּה – לֹא יִגַּע בּוֹ, מְגוּלֶּה – נוֹטֵל וּמַכְרִיז.
The Gemara rejects this explanation: Rather, actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and he stated his opinion even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. And with what are we dealing here? This is a case where the found item is concealed. The Gemara asks: If the item is concealed, what is the reason the item is with the finder? Clearly it was placed there and the owner will return to retrieve it. And didn’t we learn in a mishna (25b): In a case where one found a vessel in a garbage dump, if the vessel is concealed he may not touch it, but if it is exposed, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find.
כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְפַנּוֹת, וְנִמְלַךְ עָלֶיהָ לְפַנּוֹתָהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְפַנּוֹת, וְנִמְלַךְ עָלֶיהָ לְפַנּוֹתָהּ.
The Gemara answers: It can be explained as Rav Pappa says elsewhere, that it 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. If one finds concealed vessels he should proclaim his find, because otherwise the vessels will be cleared with the rest of the garbage dump. Here too, the mishna 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. If one finds concealed items, his course of action is determined by the identity of the majority of the residents of the city. If they are Jews, he must proclaim his find, and if not, he need not proclaim his find. No proof can be cited to resolve the dilemma.