Bava Metzia 30: Benefits of Found Items, Financial Security, Ownerless Property, Lost Animals

What if a person airs out a found sweater for its own sake but it happens to serve as decoration as well?  From asking this question, the rabbis move into a discussion about other similar cases.  If an animal uses a yoke for an atypical purpose, can that animal still be used as a red heifer?  A note teaches us that only nine red heifers are recorded as having been burned.  Clearly these are "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" questions.  

Moving on to found items of copper and wood, the rabbis again consider how and in which circumstances these items can be used.  They then turn to our last Mishna's directive regarding disregarding found items.  When is one permitted to disregard an item that was lost?  The rabbis teach about breaking both positive and negative mitzvot.  Further, we learned that we should not have to spend more than we benefit from a found item.  And the rabbis remind us that we should always put our own financial security above that of others, in keeping with Deuteronomy (15:4): "only so that there shall be no needy among you".

A story about Abaye and Rabba: Both were sitting near some goats.  Abaye threw a clod of dirt at them so that they walked away.  Rabbi instructed Abaye to get up, gather the goats and return them, for he was causing property to be lost.  People are responsible to fix the mistakes that we make.  To return object to their owners, to mend what we break.

We learn about a number of cases where items are declared ownerless.  Ownerless property need not be returned to anyone, nor must anyone tend to it.  We learn in a note that it is not tithed, either.

Our Gemara concludes with a discussion of gimilut chasadim, acts of kindness.  A person need not tend to a found item if that action is beneath their dignity.  The example used is that of an elderly person who should not have to care for a found item.  The rabbis mention that walking to visit one's contemporary who is ill is an example of gimilut chasadim.  Such a visit takes away one sixtieth of the illness.

A new Mishna is introduced to teach us about what is a lost animal and what is a wandering animal.  Cows and donkeys found grazing by the side of the road are not assumed to be lost, nor are animals running in vineyards.  However, animals who are found with their accoutrements overturned are assumed to be lost, as are those who flee and then return over and over. Even if an animal returns four or five times, one is obligated to bring it back to its owner.  And if one's labour was affected by these efforts, s/he should be paid as a labourer for his/her time.

The rabbis wonder why this list of lost animals is different from previous lists.  They consider the practicalities of this Mishna: what if an animal is grazing for a long period of time?  Shouldn't three days be long enough to assume that the animal is actually lost?  And what about the time of day?  If an animal is grazing by the side of the road at a strange hour for three days in a row, shouldn't we assume that it is lost?

Through the details in today's daf we witness both the logical imaginations of our rabbis and their dealings with property matters in court.