💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Tur%2C%20Choshen%20Mishpat… captured on 2024-03-21 at 15:44:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
262 [1] One is not obligated [to announce] any lost object that is not worth a *perutah* (a very small coin) at the time of the loss and at the time of the return. [2] Even if it was worth a *perutah* at the time of the loss, but it depreciated; or it was not worth a *perutah* at the time of the loss but it appreciated, one is not obligated [to announce it]. But if it was worth a *perutah* at the time of the loss and at the time of the return - even if it depreciated in the interim - he is obligated. The Rambam writes (Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 13:1), "If it was worth a *perutah* at the time of the finding but depreciates, he is obligated to announce it." To here [are his words]. [3] And even a lost object that is worth much - if it belongs to many partners, such that the worth of a *perutah* does not accrue to each one, he is not obligated to return it. To what does these words apply? [To a case in which] it is known that they are partners in it. But in a standard case in which he saw an object that fell from three [people] and it is only worth two *perutah*, he is obligated to return it. For perhaps they are partners in it, and one of them relinquished his part to his fellow, such that there is the worth of two *perutah* in it for two [people]. And if it is made known to him afterwards that no one relinquished [their part] to his fellow, it is surely his - even if it comes to his hand before it was made known to him that [none of the partners] relinquished [it]; since it was made known to him afterwards that no [one] relinquished [it] to [another], it is surely his. But if it is not worth a *perutah*, it is surely his - as we do not assume that two [partners] relinquished [their parts] to one. Hence he does not return it if he knows that they are partners and it doesn't have the worth of a *perutah* for each one; and if they are not partners, they abandon it. [4] One who finds a lost object is only obligated to announce something that has an identifying mark on itself, or when its location is fitting to give as an identifying mark. For example, if one announces, "I found lost object x," and the [other one] says, "You found it in place y"; or if he gives an identifying mark in its knots or its quantity. For since there is an identifying mark, the owners did not abandon it, as they will say, "I will give an identifying mark and I will get it [back]." [5] But if it does not have an identifying mark in itself or its location - such as if it is clear that it was not placed there intentionally, but rather came there in the manner of being dropped: If it something that can be assumed that its owners noticed very soon [after] it fell from them - either because of its heaviness or because of its significance and he is always feeling for it, so he notices when it falls - it is surely the finders. As behold, [the owner] abandoned [it] immediately when he knew that if fell, since it has no identifying mark. Hence it came to the hand of [the finder] permissibly, as its owners had abandoned it. But if [the object was] not [like this, the finder] is obligated to return it - even though [the owners] abandoned it afterwards - since it came to his hand before [its] abandonment. [6] And it is not necessary to say that if the circumstances show that the owners did not abandon it, one needs to return it. For example, one who sees an object fall from [one person in a group of] two, as he certainly does not abandon [it]. For he says, "There is no one else here besides this one; he certainly took it. And today or tomorrow, I will will take [something] of his, equivalent to it." And even if he saw it fall from [one person in a group of] three, about which one could say [the owner] certainly abandoned it - as he would say, "[Against] which one of them will I make a claim; each one of them will say, 'My fellow took it'" - nevertheless, he is obligated to return [it]. For one can say the three of them are partners in that object, and none of them suspects his fellow, so he did not abandon it. And if he saw from whom it fell, he is obligated to return it to him, even if it does not have an identifying mark. However if he did not see from whom it fell: If it has an identifying mark, he announces it among them; but if it does not have an identifying mark, it shall be with him until Elijah, may he be remembered for the good, arrives. And [this is the case] even when it is only worth two *perutah*, as I explained earlier (Tur, Choshen Mishpat 262:3). [7] To what do these words apply? In a standard [case]. But if he knows that the owners abandoned [it] - such as when he said, "Woe is to me for the monetary loss" - it is the finder's, even if it has an identifying mark. [8] And likewise, one who finds something that shows about it that it was lost a long time from its owners - such that the owners abandoned [it] - it is the finder's, even if there is an identifying mark in it or in its location. [9] Hence, one who finds scattered coins, round cakes of figs, bread of a baker, strings of fish that do not have an identifying mark in their knots or in their amount, cuts of meat that do not have an identifying mark, strips of combed purple wool, unprocessed wool fleeces that are not dyed or flax stalks, they are surely his. As with all of these, the owners would notice their falling - coins, a person feels in his purse all the time; so too, are strips of combed purple wool significant; round cakes of figs, bread and strings [of fish] are edible items and significant, so he feels for them; unprocessed wool fleeces and flax stalk, one feels when they fall because of their heaviness - and since they do not have an identifying mark, he immediately abandons them. For their location is also not an identifying mark, as it is not the way of any of these to be placed on the ground. So they came there in the way of being dropped, hence their place is not known [by the owners]. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 15:8), "If one finds scattered produce in the manner of being [intentionally] placed, he should not touch them; in the manner of being dropped, they are surely [the finders]." And that is not clear (appears incorrect). As in the gemara, it establishes the mishnah (Bava Metzia 21a) of one who finds produce [...] is surely his, [to be] in [the case of] gathering [grain] on the threshing floor, such that they were placed there knowingly and the owners abandoned them - as I explained above - with a *kav* in four cubits. However when not like this, they are forbidden - since the owners did not know that they fell, such that they would certainly abandon them. If he found [them] in the manner of their being dropped and it is known that the owners abandoned them, they are permitted - but not in a standard case (wherein we don't know if it was abandoned). But one who finds bread [from the kitchen] of a homeowner, dyed wool fleeces, cuts of meat or fish that have an identifying mark - or anything that has an identifying mark - is obligated to announce [it]. One who finds a barrel of wine, oil, dried figs or grain before the storehouses were opened is obligated to announce [it], since there is an identifying mark in their markings. But after the storehouses were opened, they are no [longer] identifying marks, so he is not obligated to announce [it]. Moreover, even if the [owner] presents an identifying mark, it is not effective, lest he sold it but he [still] knows an identifying mark in it. And Rabbi Yitzchak explained [the above to be] about full [barrels], such that all of their measurements are the same. But if they are not full, they have an identifying mark in their measurements. If one found piles of produce, he is obligated to announce [them] - for it was certainly placed there and their location is an identifying mark, even if it is in a public area, as they do not roll around from the feet of people. [10] And likewise [is one obligated to announce it], if he found three coins, one on top of the other, formed like a tower - the bottom larger than the middle, and the middle larger than the top - as they were certainly placed there like this. And he should announce, "I found coins"; and [the owner] should say, "There were three," and he need not say that they were formed like a tower. And likewise, one who finds one from [one side] and one from [the other] and one on top of them, or like a chain-stitch - the majority of the middle on top of the bottom and the majority of the top on top of the middle. But if he found two, even if they are formed like a tower; or even three, but they are not like a tower, but rather resting on top of the other and they are all the same in their size, or partially overlap - the understanding being that part of the one is on top of [the other] and part of it is on top of the ground - they are [the finder's]. But if he found them like a bracelet - the explanation being placed in a circle - or in a straight line, one next to [the other] or like a tripod - the explanation being like three legs of a jug - it is an inquiry that was not resolved. And the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote that he may not take it. But my father, my master, the Rosh, may his memory be blessed, wrote [that] he takes and announces [it]. To what do these words apply? When he returns a coin due to the identifying marks in the location. But we do not return it to him if the identifying mark is not in its location, but in itself. Even if he says it is marked by the seal of king x or even [if] his name is written upon it, we do not return it to him - as it is made for spending, and maybe he spent it and it fell from another. [11] If one saw that a *sela* (a large coin) fell from his fellow into the sand or into the dirt, it is permissible for him to take it, as [the owner] certainly abandoned [it] - even if he saw him sifting through the sand or the dirt with a sieve to search for it, he abandoned [it]. And his intention in sifting through the sand or the dirt is not about this *sela*, but rather since he suspects, "Maybe I will find mine or another *sela* that fell from others." [12] One who found small bundles [of grain] in a private area, such as a planted field: If it is clear that they came there in the manner of being dropped, they are surely his - since they did not have an identifying mark. But if it was in the manner of being placed, he is obligated to announce [them], as their location is an identifying mark. [13] But if he found them in a public area, they are certainly his - since they roll around from people's feet, so their location is not an identifying mark. But large bundles, even if he found them in a public area, he is obligated to announce - as their location is an identifying mark. But a location in which everyone is accustomed to place [their items] there, such as a barrel on the riverfront, is not an identifying mark - since everyone unloads their barrels there. Anything that has an identifying mark, even if it is in a public area - such that it is prone to being trampled by people's feet - is considered [having] an identifying mark. [14] And an identifying mark that comes on its own (was not placed there intentionally) - such as a loaf [of bread] with coins inside it or a round cake of figs with a piece of earthenware inside it, such that it is not the way to place them inside them, but it rather rather fell inside them on its own: Rabbi Yehudah held that it is an identifying mark, since he sometimes places it into his mind to remember that it is in it and proclaims it as an identifying mark - and therefore [the finder] is obligated to announce [it]. But the rabbis do not think it is an identifying mark. And the Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote that it was an an identifying mark; but I do not know why he decided like Rabbi Yehudah. However my father, my master, the Rosh, may his memory be blessed, decided like the sages. [15] One who measures the weight of an item or its size or its knots or its quantity in a place where they are not accustomed to making all of the knots and quantities the same, is an identifying mark. Hence one who finds needles or tubes or nails: If one found them one by one, they are surely his - for there is surly no identifying mark in them. And they are his, even if there are many needles in one cloth, for their quantity is not an identifying mark, since it is customary to make the quantity in all of the cloths the same. But if one found two cloths, he should announce and say, "I have found needles," and [the other one] says, "There were two cloths." And likewise if he found many needles without a cloth, he should announce it and [the other one] provides an identifying mark with their quantity. [16] A cut of meat about which he says it was from the neck or the thigh is not an identifying mark. But if he provides an identifying mark about its cutting, it is an identifying mark. [17] One who buys produce from this fellow, or that his fellow sent it to him, and he finds coins in it: If they are tied, he is obligated to announce [them], for the knot is an identifying mark; but if they were scattered, they are his. To what do these words apply? To one who buys from a retailer, since [the latter] bought it from many people and he doesn't know who it is from, so the owners abandon [them]. And likewise is it the law when the retailer finds them himself, that they are his. And that is when they were held in his possession long enough that he could mix them with his produce. But if one buys them from a private individual, [the buyer] is obligated to return them to him. And that is when the private individual threshed [the produce] himself, or through his [gentile] servants or maid-servants. But if he had them threshed by workers, [the finder] need not return it - as perhaps they belong to the workers (their ownership is uncertain). [18] If one found a donkey with a saddle upon it - [the finder] also returns the donkey to one who can provide identifying marks about the saddle. [19] And likewise [with] a vessel and there is produce inside it, or a purse and there are coins inside it, we return the produce along with the vessel and the coins along with the purse - even if not all of them are inside it, but rather only some of them, and some of them are on the ground. But if none of them are inside the vessel - if the back of the vessel is facing the produce, they belong to their finder in any circumstance. However if the front of the vessel is facing the produce: We see that if the vessel has a rim, the produce belongs to their finder - for if they had been in the vessel, they would not have fallen from it, since the rim impedes them; but if it does not have a rim, we return the produce along with the vessel. And all of this is with a basket and produce. But with a container and flax, in any circumstance, they belong to their finders - according to Rashi, may his memory be blessed. And according to Rabbi Yitzchak, in any circumstance, they belong to the one who provides an identifying mark about the vessel. And so too wrote my father, my master, the Rosh, may his memory be blessed. [20] One who finds an item that has no identifying mark is not obligated to announce it - as I explained. But if it is an item that can be recognized by its owner by visual recognition - such as if it is old and he has already used it: If the claimant is a Torah scholar and he says that he recognizes it from visual recognition - that this is the vessel that he lost - [the finder] is obligated to return it. [21] Hence a finder in a place where Torah scholars are common there - such as inside a study hall - is obligated to announce [what he found]. For the owners did not abandon [it], as they say that one who finds it in a place where Torah scholars reside will think that is belongs to a Torah scholar and will return it to him, and take it and announce [it]. To what do these words apply? To a Torah scholar that does not alter his speech (say an untruth) except with regard to a tractate (whether he studied it), with regard to a bed (whether he slept in it) and with regard to a host (as to the quality of the hospitality). But if he alters his speech about something else, we do not return it to him from visual recognition. However one who finds it in a place where Torah scholars are uncommon - or if the vessel is still new and he has not used it in a manner that he would recognize it - is not obligated to announce [it].
Version: Sefaria Community Translation
Source: https://www.sefaria.org
License: unknown