D. Falk, 2002

1.          Rabbinic Literature

1.1.1.           A Page of Mishnah

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/TalmudMap/Mishnah.html

1.1.2.           A Page of Talmud

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/TalmudPage.html

1.1.3.           Amoraic Instruction. Bavli Eruvin 54b-55a

Our Rabbis learned: What was the procedure of the instruction in the oral law? Moses learned from the mouth of the Omnipotent. Then Aaron entered and Moses taught him his lesson. Aaron then moved aside and sat down on Moses’ left. Thereupon Aaron’s sons entered and Moses taught them their lesson. His sons then moved aside, Eleazar taking his seat on Moses’ right and Ithamar on Aaron’s left. R. Judah stated: Aaron was always on Moses right. Thereupon the elders entered and Moses taught them their lesson, and when the elders moved aside all the people entered and Moses taught them their lesson. It thus followed that Aaron heard the lesson30 four times, his sons heard it three times, the elders twice and all the people once. At this stage Moses departed and Aaron taught them his lesson. Then Aaron departed and his sons taught them their lesson. His sons then departed and the elders taught them their lesson. It thus followed that everybody heard the lesson four times. From here R. Eliezer inferred: It is a man’s duty to teach his pupil [his lesson] four times. For this is arrived at a minori ad majus: Aaron who learned from Moses who had it from the Omnipotent had to learn his lesson four times31 how much more so an ordinary pupil who learns from an ordinary teacher.

 

R. Akiba stated: Whence is it deduced that a man must go on teaching his pupil until he has mastered the subject? From Scripture where it says: And teach thou it to the children of Israel. And whence is it deduced that it must be taught until the students are well versed in it? From Scripture where it says. Put it in their mouths. And whence is it inferred that it is also his duty to explain to him the reasons? It has been said: Now these are the ordinances which thou shalt put before them.

 

But why did they not all learn37 direct from Moses? — In order to give a share of the honour to Aaron, his sons, and the elders. Then [why was not this procedure adopted:] Aaron might enter and learn from Moses, his sons might then enter and learn from Aaron, then the elders might enter and learn from his sons and these finally might teach all Israel? — As Moses learned from the mouth of the Omnipotent his own teaching was of greater value.            . . .

 

R. Pereda had a pupil whom he taught his lesson four hundred times before the latter could master it. On a certain day having been requested to attend to a religious matter he taught him as usual but the pupil could not master the subject. ‘What’, the Master asked: ‘is the matter to-day?’ — ‘From the moment’, the other replied. ‘the Master was told that there was a religious matter to be attended to I could not concentrate my thoughts, for at every moment I imagined, now the Master will get up or now the Master will get up’. ‘Give me your attention’, the Master said, ‘and I will teach you again’, and so he taught him another four hundred times. A bath kol issued forth asking him, ‘Do you prefer that four hundred years shall be added to your life or that you and your generation shall be privileged to have a share in the world to come?’ — ‘That’, he replied. ‘I and my generation shall be privileged to have a share in the world to come’. ‘Give him both’, said the Holy One, blessed be He.

 

R. Hisda stated: The Torah can only be acquired with [the aid of] mnemonic signs, for it is said: Put it in their mouths; read not, ‘put it’ but ‘its mnemonic sign’. R. Tahlifa of the West heard this and proceeding to R. Abbahu told it to him. ‘You’, the other said to him, ‘deduce this from that text; we deduce it from this one: Set thee up waymarks, make thee’ etc.; devise [mnemonic] signs for the Torah. What proof, however, is there that the expression of ziyyun means a sign? — Since it is written, And any seeth a man’s bone, then shall be set up a sign by it. R. Eleazar said: The deduction is made from this text: Say unto wisdom, ‘Thou art my sister’, and call understanding they kinswoman, devise [mnemonic] signs for the Torah — Raba expounded: Appoint fixed times for the study of the Torah.

[Translation adapted from Soncino Classics]

1.2.         Restitution.

1.2.1.           Exodus 22:1-12 (RSV).

“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. He shall make restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 2 If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or an ass or a sheep, he shall pay double.
3 “If a thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him; 4 but if the sun has risen upon him, there shall be bloodguilt for him.
5 “When a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard.
6 “When fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he that kindled the fire shall make full restitution.
7 “If a man delivers to his neighbor money or goods to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. 8 If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God, to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor’s goods.
9 “For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for ass, for sheep, for clothing, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, `This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.
10 “If a man delivers to his neighbor an ass or an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep, and it dies or is hurt or is driven away, without any one seeing it, 11 an oath by the LORD shall be between them both to see whether he has not put his hand to his neighbor’s property; and the owner shall accept the oath, and he shall not make restitution. 12 But if it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.

1.2.2.           Mishnah Baba Kamma 6:4-5

4. If a man caused fire to break out at the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, he is not culpable by the laws of man, but he is culpable by the laws of Heaven.

If he caused it to break out at the hand of one of the sound senses, this one is culpable.

If one brought the fire and then another brought the wood, he that brought the wood is culpable.

If one brought wood and then another brought the fire, he that brought the fire is culpable.

If a third came and set the wood ablaze, he that set it ablaze is culpable.

If the wind set it ablaze none of them is culpable.

If a man caused fire to break out and it consumed wood or stones or dust, he is culpable, for it is written, If fire break out and catch in thorns so that the shocks of corn or the standing corn or the field be consumed, he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution (Exodus 22:6).

If it passed over a fence four cubits high, or over a public way or a river, he that caused it is not culpable.

If a man kindled fire within his own domain, how far may it spread [before he is no longer culpable for the damage it causes]? R. Eleazar b. Azariah says: It is looked upon as though it was in the midst of a kor’s space of land [75000 square cubits]. R. Eliezer says: Sixteen cubits [radius], like a public highway. R. Akiba says: Fifty cubits. R. Simeon says: [It is written,] He that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution—all is in accordance with the nature of the fire.

5. If a man set fire to a stack and in it there were utensils and these caught fire, R. Judah says: He must make restitution for what was therein. But the Sages say: He need only make restitution for a stack of wheat or barley. If a kid was fastened to it and a bondman stood near by, and they were burnt together, he that kindled the fire is liable [for the kid but not for the bondman]. If the bondman was bound and a kid stood near by and they were burnt together, he that kindled the fire is not liable [for either]. And the Sages agree with R. Judah that if a man set fire to a large building he must make restitution for everything therein; for such is the custom among men to leave [their goods] in their houses.

[Translation adapted from Danby, The Mishnah]

1.2.3.           Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael Nezeqin 14

“If fire breaks out,” etc. (Ex. 22:5). Why is this said? Even if it had not been said I could have reasoned: Since he is liable for damage done by what is owned by him, shall he not be liable for damage done by himself? If then, I succeed in probing it by logical reasoning, what need is there of saying” “If fire break out”? Simply this: Scripture comes to declare that in all cases of liability for damage mentioned in the Toray, one acting under duress is regarded as one acting of his own free will, one acting unintentionally is regarded as one acting intentionally, and the woman is regarded like the man.

“And catches in thorns.” Behold, thorns are mentioned only with regard to fixing the distance within which one is liable. If there are thorns around, there is a certain distance within which one is liable. If there are no thorns around, there is no such distance. Hende the sages said: If the fire gets across a river, or a road, or a stone fence higher than ten handbreadths and causes damage, he is not liable. How do we determine the matter? We regard him as standing in the center of a field, requiring a kor of seed, and lighting the fire. These are the words of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Eliezer says: The distance within which he is liable is 16 cubits, the usual width of a public road. Rabbi Akiva says: The distance is fifty cubits. Rabbi Simon says: “He that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution:” it all depends on the size of the fire. It happened once that a fire spread across the Jordan and did damage there, since it was a big fire. When does this obtain? When the fire jumps. But if it keeps close to the ground and spreads that way, even though it go a distance of a mile, he is liable.

“So that the stack . . . be consumed.” This means any kind of a pile. It also includes a row of reeds or of beams, and likewise a heap of stones or of pebbles prepared to be used for plastering.

“Or the standing corn (grain).” Trees are also included.

“Or the field.” That is, even if it just dried up the ground. May it not mean, even if there were implements hidden in the stacks and they were burnt? It says: “Or the standing corn or the field.” Just as the field is open, so also what stands in it must be open.

“The one that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.” Why is this said? Because is says: “A man” (Ex. 22:4), from which I know only about a man. But how about a woman, a tumtum [indeterminate sexuality], or a hermaphrodite [dual sexual organs]? It says: “The one that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution”—whoever it may be.

I thus far know only about damage caused by grazing or by burning. How about all other kinds of damage mentioned in the Torah? Behold, you reason and establish a general rule on the basis of what is common to these two: The peculiar aspect of damage by grazing is not like the peculiar aspect of damage by burning, nor is the peculiar aspect of damage by burning like the peculiar aspect of damage by grazing. What is common to both of them is: that it is their characteristic to do damage, they are your property, and it is incumbent upon you to guard them. And when damage is done, the one causing the damage is liable to pay for the damage from the best of his land.

[Translation Lauterback, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael)

1.3.         Lost and Found.

1.3.1.           Exodus 23:4 (RSV)

“If you meet your enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, you shall bring it back to him.

1.3.2.           Deuteronomy 22:1-5 (RSV)

“You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and withhold your help from them; you shall take them back to your brother. 2 And if he is not near you, or if you do not know him, you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. 3 And so you shall do with his ass; so you shall do with his garment; so you shall do with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he loses and you find; you may not withhold your help. 4 You shall not see your brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the way, and withhold your help from them; you shall help him to lift them up again.
5 “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

1.3.3.           Mishnah Baba Metzia 2:1-5 (Danby)

2:1 What lost goods belong to the finder and what must be proclaimed? These goods belong to the finder: if a man found scattered fruit, scattered money, small sheaves in the public domain, cakes of figs, bakers’ loaves, strings of fish, pieces of flesh, wool-shearings [in the condition in which they have been] brought from their country [of origin], stalks of flax, and strips of purple wool; these belong to the finder. So R. Meir.
R. Judah says: Whatsoever has in it aught unusual must be proclaimed: thus if he found a fig-cake with a potsherd in it or a loaf with coins in it [he must proclaim it].
R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: [New] merchandise need not be proclaimed.
2:2 And these must be proclaimed: if a man found fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel, or money in a bag, or an empty bag, heaps of fruit or heaps of money, three conins one upon another, small sheaves in a private domain, home-made loaves, wool-shearings bought from a [wool-]worker’s shop, jugs of wine or jugs of oil, these must be proclaimed.
2:5 A garment also was included amonst all these things. Why was it mentioned separately? To compare [other things] to it: to teach thee that as a particular garment has both special marks and them that lay claim to it, so everything must be proclaimed which has both special marks and them that lay claim to it.

1.3.4.           Jerusalem Talmud Baba Metzia 2:5

Rabbi Hanina related this story: “Some old Rabbis bought a pile of wheat from some soldiers and found in it a purse full if dinars, and they returned it to them.”

The soldiers said, “Blessed be the God of the Jews.”

Abba Oshaya of Tiraya was a laundry-man. Once the queen came to wash in a pool of water and lost her bath clothes. [Abba Oshaya] found them. When she came out, he gave them to her. She said to him, “They are yours. What use have I for them? Of what importance are they to me? I have better ones and I have many more.”

He responded to her, “The Torah decrees that we must return [lost property].”

She said, “Blessed be the God of the Jews.”

Rabbi Samuel bar Sursetai went to Rome. The queen lost her necklace and he found it. A proclamation was issued throughout the province that whoever returns it within thirty days will receive such-and-such [a reward], but [whoever returns it] after thirty days will be beheaded. [Rabbi Samuel] did not return it within the thirty days. After the thirty days he returned it.

She said to him, “Were you not in the province?”

He responded to her, “Yes, [I was here].”

She said to him, “Did you not hear the proclamation?”

He said to her, “Yes, [I heard it].”

She said to him, “What was it?”

He responded to her, “Whoever returns it within thirty days will receive such-and-such, but if after thirty days he will be beheaded.”

She said to him, “Then why did you not return it within the thirty days?”

He said to her, “So that no one may say that I did it because of fear of you; for, [actually, I did it] because of fear of the All-Merciful.”

She said, “Blessed be the God of the Jews.”

[Translation by S. Berrin and L. H. Schiffman, in Schiffman, Texts and Traditions §12.3.2, pp. 627-8]

1.3.5.           Babylonian Talmud Baba Metzia 21a-24a

MISHNAH. SOME FINDS BELONG TO THE FINDER; OTHERS MUST BE                 ANNOUNCED.9 THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES BELONG TO THE FINDER: IF ONE FINDS SCATTERED FRUIT, SCATTERED MONEY,10 SMALL SHEAVES IN A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE,11 ROUND CAKES OF PRESSED FIGS, A BAKER’S LOAVES,12 STRINGS OF FISHES, PIECES OF MEAT, FLEECES OF WOOL WHICH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FROM THE COUNTRY,13 BUNDLES OF FLAX AND STRIPES OF PURPLE,14 COLOURED WOOL; ALL THESE BELONG TO THE FINDER.15 THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. MEIR.16 R. JUDAH SAYS: WHATSOEVER HAS IN IT SOMETHING UNUSUAL MUST BE ANNOUNCED,17 AS, FOR INSTANCE, IF ONE FINDS A ROUND [OF FIGS] CONTAINING A POTSHERD, OR A LOAF CONTAINING MONEY. R. SIMEON B. ELEAZAR SAYS: NEW MERCHANDISE18 NEED NOT BE ANNOUNCED.

 

GEMARA. IF ONE FINDS SCATTERED FRUIT, etc.

 

[1. Definition]

What quantity [of fruit in a given space] is meant?

R. Isaac said: A kab [approximately 1 ½ quarts] within four cubits.

 

But what kind of a case is meant?

If [the fruit appears to have been] dropped accidentally, then even if there is more than a kab [it should] also [belong to the finder].

 

And if it appears to have been [deliberately] put down, then even if there is a smaller quantity it should not [belong to the finder]?

 

R. ‘Ukba b. Hama answered: We deal here with [the remains of] what has been gathered on the threshing floor: [To collect] a kab [scattered over a space] of four cubits is troublesome, and, as people do not trouble to come back and collect it, [the owner also] abandons it, but if it is [spread over] a smaller space [the owner] does come back and collect it, and he does not abandon it.

 

[2. Questioning]

R. Jeremiah enquired: How is it [if one finds] half a kab [scattered over the space] of two cubits?

Is the reason why a kab within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is troublesome [to collect], and therefore half a kab within two cubits, which is not troublesome to collect, is not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is not worth the trouble of collecting [when spread over such a space], and therefore half a kab within two cubits, which is still less worth the trouble of collecting, is abandoned [and should belong to the finder]? [Again,] how is it [if one finds] two kabs [scattered over the space] of eight cubits? Is the reason why a kab within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is troublesome to collect, and therefore two kabs within eight cubits, which are still more troublesome to collect, are even more readily abandoned [and should certainly belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is not worth the trouble [of collecting], and therefore two kabs within eight cubits, which are worth the trouble [of collecting] are not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder]?  . . . — The questions remain unanswered.

 

[3. Statement of Amoraic principles]

It has been stated: Anticipated abandonment [of the hope of recovering a lost article] is, Abaye maintains, no abandonment, but Raba maintains, it is an abandonment.

[If the lost article is] a thing which has an identification mark, all agree that [the anticipation of its abandonment by the owner] is no abandonment, and even if in the end we hear him [express regret at his loss in a way that makes it clear] that he has abandoned it, it is not [deemed to be an] abandonment, for when [the finder] took possession of it he had no right to it6 because [it is assumed that] when [the loser] becomes aware that he lost it he will not give up the hope [of recovering it] but says [to himself], ‘I can recognise it by an identification mark; I shall indicate the identification mark and shall take it back.’ [If the lost article is found] in the intertidal space of the seashore or on ground that is flooded by a river, then, even if it has an identification mark, the Divine Law permits [the finder to acquire it], as we shall explain further on. They differ only where the article has no identification mark. Abaye says: It is no abandonment because [the loser] did not know that he lost it; Raba says: It is an abandonment, because when he becomes aware that he lost it he gives up the hope [of recovering it] as he says [to himself], ‘I cannot recognise it by an identification mark,’ it is therefore as if he had given up hope from the moment [he lost it].

 

[4. Analysis of Tannaitic traditions]

Come and hear: SCATTERED FRUIT —

[is not this a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — R. ‘Ukba b. Hama has already explained that we deal here with [the remains of] what has been gathered on the threshing floor, so that [the owner] is aware of his loss.

 

Come and hear: SCATTERED MONEY, [etc.] BELONG TO THE FINDER.

Why? [Is it not a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — There also it is even as R. Isaac said: A man usually feels for his purse at frequent intervals.12 So here, too, [we say,] ‘A man usually feels for his purse at frequent intervals’ [and soon discovers his loss].

 

Come and hear: ROUND CAKES OF PRESSED FIGS, A BAKER’S LOAVES, [etc.] BELONG TO THE FINDER.

Why? [Is it not a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — There also he becomes aware of his loss, because [the lost articles] are heavy.

 

Come and hear: STRIPES OF PURPLE [etc.] — THEY BELONG TO THE FINDER.

Why? [Is it not a case where the loser] did not know that he lost them? — There also [he becomes aware of his loss] because the articles are valuable, and he frequently feels for them, even as R. Isaac said.

 

Come and hear: If one finds money in a Synagogue or in a house of study, or in any other place where many people congregate, it belongs to him, because

the owner has given up the hope of recovering it. [Is not this a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — R. Isaac answered: people usually feel for their purse at frequent intervals. . . .

 

SMALL SHEAVES IN A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE BELONG TO THE FINDER. Rabbah said: Even when they have an identification mark.

Consequently [it must be assumed that] Rabbah is of the opinion that an identification mark which is liable to be trodden on is not [deemed to be] an identification mark. Raba said [on the other hand]: [The Mishnah] refers only to things which have no identification mark, but things which have an identification mark have to be announced. Consequently [it must be assumed that] Raba is of the opinion that an identification mark that is liable to be trodden on is [deemed to be] an identification mark. Some teach this as an independent controversy. In regard to an identification mark which is liable to be trodden on, Rabbah says that it is not [deemed to be] an identification mark, but Raba says that it is [deemed to be] an identification mark.

 

We have learnt: Small sheaves [which are found] in a public thoroughfare belong to the finder, [but if found] on private grounds26 they have to be taken up and announced. How is this to be understood? If [the sheaves] have no identification mark — what is there to be announced [if they are found] on private grounds? It must therefore be that they have an identification mark, and still it is stated that [if found] in a public thoroughfare they belong to the finder. Consequently [it must be assumed that] an identification mark which is liable to be trodden on is not [deemed to be] an identification mark, which is a refutation of Raba! — Raba may answer you: In reality they have no identification mark; and as to your question, ‘What is there to be announced [if they were found] on private grounds?’, [the answer is:] The place [where they were found] is announced.28 But Rabbah says that the place is no identification mark. For it has been stated: [In regard to] the place — Rabbah says, it is not considered an identification mark, but Raba says, it is an identification mark.

 

Come and hear: Small sheaves [which are found] in a public thoroughfare belong to the finder, but [if found] on private grounds they have to be taken up and announced. Big sheaves, however, whether [they are found] in a public thoroughfare or [are found] on private grounds, have to be taken up and announced. How does Rabbah explain it,29 and how does Raba explain it? — Rabbah explains it according to his view: By the identification mark. Raba explains it according to his view: By the place. . . .

 

Come and hear: A BAKER’S LOAVES, [etc.] BELONG TO THE FINDER — but ‘home-made loaves have to be announced,’

now what is the reason in the case of home-made loaves, obviously that they have an identification mark and one can tell that the bread belongs to this person or that person, and, no matter whether [they are found] in a public thoroughfare or on private grounds, [the finder] has to take them up and announce them. It therefore follows that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is a valid mark, — which is a refutation of Rabbah! . . .

 

AND STRINGS OF FISHES.

Why [do they belong to the finder]? Should not the knot serve as an identification mark? — [The Mishnah speaks] of a fisherman’s knot which is tied so universally. But should not the number of [fishes on the string] serve as a distinguishing mark? — [The Mishnah speaks] of a fixed number [of fishes]. . . .

 

AND PIECES OF MEAT, etc.

Why [do they belong to the finder]? Should not the weight serve as a distinguishing mark? — [The Mishnah speaks] of a fixed weight. . . .

 

R. Bibi asked of R. Nahman: Is the place [where an article is found] an identification mark or not?

— [R. Nahman] answered him: You have learned it: If one finds barrels of wine, or of oil, or of corn, or of dried figs, or of olives, they belong to him. Now if you were to assume that the place [where an article is found] is an identification mark [the finder] ought to announce the place! — R. Zebid answered: Here we deal with [barrels found] on the river-bank. R. Mari said: For what reason did the Rabbis maintain that the river-bank does not constitute an identification mark? Because we say to him: As it happened to you, so it may have happened to your neighbour. Some have another version: R. Mari said: For what reason did the Rabbis maintain that the place constitutes no identification mark? Because we say to him: As it happened to you in this place, so it may have happened to your neighbour in this [same] place.