Study Bava Metzia folio 27A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
בלוקח מן התגר, אבל בלוקח מבעל הבית – חייב להחזיר. וכן תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן: לא שנו אלא בלוקח מן התגר, אבל בלוקח מבעל הבית – חייב להחזיר.
in the case of one who purchases produce from a merchant, who acquired the produce from several suppliers and is unable to determine the source of the coins. But in the case of one who purchases produce from a single owner, he is obligated to return the coins to the seller. And likewise, the tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall of Rav Naḥman taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: A baraita states that the coins belong to the buyer only in the case of one who purchases produce from a merchant, but in the case of one who purchases produce from a single owner, he is obligated to return the coins to the seller.
אמר ליה רב נחמן: וכי בעל הבית בעצמו דשן? אמר ליה: איסמיה? אמר ליה: לא, תתרגם מתניתין כגון שדשן על ידי עבדו ושפחתו הכנענים.
Rav Naḥman said to the tanna: But does the owner thresh the grain himself? His workers thresh the grain, and the coins could belong to one of them. The tanna said to Rav Naḥman: Based on the difficulty you raise, should I delete it from the collection of authoritative baraitot? Rav Naḥman said to the tanna: No. Interpret the baraita as referring to a case where the grain was threshed by his Canaanite slave or female slave, and therefore any coins found intermingled with the produce belong to the owner.
מתני׳ אף השמלה היתה בכלל כל אלו, ולמה יצאת? להקיש אליה, לומר לך: מה שמלה מיוחדת, שיש בה סימנין ויש לה תובעין, אף כל דבר שיש בו סימנין ויש לו תובעים חייב להכריז.
Mishnah: This Mishnah is an excerpt from a halakhic midrash concerning lost items, based on the verse: “You should not see your brother’s ox or his sheep wandering, and disregard them; you should return them to your brother…And so should you do with his donkey; and so should you do with his garment; and so should you do with every lost item of your brother, which should be lost from him, and you have found it; you may not disregard it” (Deuteronomy 22:1, 3). The garment was also included in the generalization that one must return all of these items. And why did it emerge from the generalization that it should be specified? To draw an analogy to it and to say to you: What is notable about a garment? It is notable in that there are distinguishing marks concerning it and it has claimants asserting ownership, and its finder is obligated to proclaim his find. So too with regard to any item concerning which there are distinguishing marks and it has claimants asserting ownership, its finder is obligated to proclaim his find.