007 Kelei Anporia

(א) אֵלּוּ מְצִיאוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ חַיָּב לְהַכְרִיז... רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, כָּל כְּלֵי אֶנְפּוֹרְיָא אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהַכְרִיז:

Mishnah Bava Metzia 2:1

(1) Which are the found items that belong to him [the finder], and which ones must he announce?...

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, any merchandise, one does not need to announce.

בבא מציעא כ״ג ב:י׳

ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר וכו':

מאי אנפוריא?

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כלים חדשים שלא שבעתן העין.

היכי דמי?

אי אית בהו סימן כי לא שבעתן העין מאי הוי?

אי דלית בהו סימן כי שבעתן העין מאי הוי?

Bava Metzia 23b:10

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one finds any anpurya vessels he is not obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara asks: What are anpurya vessels? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They are new vessels, as the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them to be able to recognize them. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If there is a distinguishing mark on the vessels, when the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them, what of it? He can describe the mark after even a short glance and claim his item. If there is no distinguishing mark on the vessels, then when the eye of the one who purchases them has sufficiently seen them, what of it?

בבא מציעא כ״ג ב:י״א

לעולם דלית בהו סימן:

נפקא מינה לאהדורי לצורבא מרבנן בטביעות עינא.

שבעתן העין קים ליה בגוייהו ומהדרינן ליה.

כי לא שבעתן העין לא קים ליה בגוייהו ולא מהדרינן ליה.

דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בהני תלת מילי עבידי רבנן דמשנו במלייהו:

במסכת ובפוריא ובאושפיזא.

Bava Metzia 23b:11

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is a vessel in which there is no distinguishing mark, and the practical difference is with regard to returning the vessel to a Torah scholar on the basis of visual recognition. When the eye of a Torah scholar has sufficiently seen them he is certain about them, and we return a lost item to him on the basis of his description of the vessel. When the eye of a Torah scholar has not sufficiently seen them, he is not certain about them, and we do not return a lost item to him, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to these three matters alone, it is normal for Sages to amend their statements and deviate from the truth: With regard to a tractate, if he is asked whether he studied a particular tractate, he may humbly say that he did not, even if he did. And with regard to a bed, if he is asked whether he slept in a particular bed, he may say that he did not, to avoid shame in case some unseemly residue is found on the bed.

בבא מציעא כ״ד א:א׳

מאי נפקא מינה?

אמר מר זוטרא לאהדורי ליה אבידתא בטביעות עינא.

אי ידעינן ביה דלא משני אלא בהני תלת מהדרינן ליה.

ואי משני במילי אחריני לא מהדרינן ליה

Bava Metzia 24a:1

And he can lie with regard to a host [ushpiza], as one may say that he was not well received by a certain host to prevent everyone from taking advantage of the host’s hospitality. What is the practical difference that emerges from this statement with regard to matters in which Torah scholars deviate from the truth? Mar Zutra says: The practical difference is with regard to returning a lost item on the basis of visual recognition. If we know about him that he alters his statements only with regard to these three matters, we return the lost item to him, but if he alters his statements with regard to other matters, we do not return the lost item to him.

בבא מציעא כ״ד א:ב׳

מר זוטרא חסידא אגניב ליה כסא דכספא מאושפיזא.

חזיא לההוא בר בי רב דמשי ידיה ונגיב בגלימא דחבריה.

אמר היינו האי!

דלא איכפת ליה אממונא דחבריה.

כפתיה ואודי.

Bava Metzia 24a:2

The Gemara relates: A silver goblet was stolen from the host of Mar Zutra Ḥasida. Mar Zutra saw a certain student of Torah who washed his hands and dried them on the cloak of another. Mar Zutra said: This is the one who does not care about the property of another. He bound that student, and the student then confessed that he stole the goblet.