Bava Metzia - Daf 27
- Laws derived from שמלה, and other elements listed in passuk of אבידה
The next Mishnah states: אף השמלה היתה בכלל כל אלו – The “garment” was also included in all these items which the Torah commanded to return, and it was written in the passuk to teach: מה שמלה מיוחדת – just as a garment is unique, שיש בה סימנין ויש לה תובעין – in that it has identifying marks, and has claimants (i.e., it is generally identifiable, and it usually has an owner since it is man-made), so too any item with identifying marks and claimants must be announced. Rava explains why the Torah wrote other examples: "חמור" – donkey teaches דאפילו חמור בסימני האוכף – that even a donkey should be returned by the owner merely providing simanim of the saddle, which is sufficient proof that he owns the donkey as well. "שור" – ox teaches דאפילו לגיזת זנבו – that even the shearing of its tail must be returned, and he initially explains that "שה" – lamb teaches לגיזותיו – that its shearings must be returned, but the Gemara objects that if one must return even the tail shearing, certainly the more substantial lamb shearings must be returned!? Rava concedes that it is difficult to explain what the word "שה" teaches.
- Two sources excluding lost items worth less than a perutah
A Baraisa darshens: "אשר תאבד" – that which is lost, פרט לאבידה שאין בה שוה פרוטה – this excludes a lost item that is not worth a perutah, which is not classified as a “lost item.” Rebbe Yehudah derives this from the word "ומצאתה" – and you have found it, requiring it to be classified as a “found item.” Abaye says: משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו – the difference between them is their interpretation of the derashos, but there is no practical difference. The Gemara explains how each Tanna interprets the other Tanna’s passuk. Rava says they disagree when the item must be worth a perutah. The Tanna Kamma requires it to be a perutah when it is found, and Rebbe Yehudah requires it to be worth a perutah when it is lost. The Gemara argues that each Tanna should agree that the other phrase also requires a perutah’s worth at the other time and concludes: פרוטה (שהוקרה) והוזלה וחזרה והוקרה איכא בינייהו – the practical difference between them is an item worth a perutah which depreciated and then appreciated and was worth a perutah when it was lost and then found, but not in the interim. Rebbe Yehudah requires it to be worth a perutah from the time of loss until it is found.
- סימנין דאורייתא או דרבנן
The Gemara asks: סימנין דאורייתא או דרבנן – is the law to return lost objects based on providing identifying marks Biblical or Rabbinical? The practical difference is whether we would return a get to a woman based on her providing simanim. Since this would enable her to remarry, and is not a mere monetary question, it would only be returned to her if it is Biblically accepted evidence. Numerous proofs are offered and deflected. The Gemara notes, however, that a סימן מובהק – unique identifying mark is definitely sufficient even mid’Oraysa. The Gemara explains, if simanim are not d’Oraysa, why the Rabbis instituted to return items based on a siman: the owner himself prefers that it be returned with a siman (although it risks someone else taking it unlawfully), because he realizes he does not have witnesses to identify the item as his. Since it is likely that he is the only one who knows its simanim, it is in his best interest that the item be returned to the one who provides its simanim.
