MISHNAH · LOST PROPERTY · 1 OF 6
When a find was placed
An owner can leave something and intend to return for it. Learn to notice that possibility before treating everything you encounter as a loss to collect.
In this lesson
Finding is not yet explaining
The Torah commands us to care for another person's lost property. In the first found-object reading, we learned to separate a case's facts, its stated treatment and a commentator's explanation. The container comparison then taught us to preserve small facts such as “in” and “beside.” Bring that care to a new question: has this property actually been lost?
The Mishnah gathers our sages' teachings. Bava Metzia is its tractate, or named book, concerned with property relationships and related responsibilities. 2:3 identifies chapter 2, mishnah 3. Our selection contains its opening two cases. The later mound and wall cases have their own facts and explanations.
Begin with a distinction you can explain: “I do not see the owner” describes your observation. “The owner abandoned it” makes a claim about the owner. The second statement needs evidence the first does not supply.
Read the place and condition
מצא לאחר הגפה או לאחר הגדר גוזלות מקושרין, או בשבילין שבשדות—הרי זה לא ייגע בהן.
מצא כלי באשפה—אם מכוסה, לא ייגע בו; ואם מגולה, נוטל ומכריז.If one found tied fledglings behind a barrier or behind a wall, or on paths in the fields, one must not touch them.
If one found a vessel in a refuse heap: if it is covered, one must not touch it; if it is exposed, one takes it and announces it.
English rendering by Messianic Yeshiva
A vessel is a container or utensil. To announce a find is to make it known so that its owner can claim it. The selection names two treatments: leave the object where it is, or take it and announce it. Neither treatment here says “keep it as your own.”
Try the cases. Before opening the answer, make two lines for the birds and two for the vessel. Name the condition and the treatment in each line. Include the contrast within the vessel case.
1. Which facts govern these treatments?
The birds are tied and found in the stated places: behind a barrier or wall, or on field paths. The Mishnah says not to touch them. For the vessel in the refuse heap, the contrast is covered versus exposed: leave the covered vessel; take and announce the exposed one.
“There was something outside” loses almost all the case. A useful case note preserves location, condition and the stated action.
Why leave the birds?
Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura, a later commentator on the Mishnah, explains gapah, our “barrier,” as one made of wood or reeds, and the gader, our “wall,” as stone. Those details come from his commentary. They help us picture the places without changing the Mishnah's treatment.
Bartenura explains the birds as property someone may have put away there. Taking them could prevent the owner from recovering them: the owner returns to the place, while the birds have been removed and lack an identifying feature by which to claim them. Leaving them serves the owner in this case.
2. Does “do not touch” mean “the owner no longer matters”?
No. Bartenura explains it through the owner's possible return and the problem caused by removal. The concern for the owner helps explain leaving the birds. “Care” and “pick up” are not interchangeable in every case.
A siman is an identifying feature; simanim is the plural. Remember that it must help identify the particular property, rather than merely name its kind. Bartenura explains the tie:
בכנפיהן. דכולי עלמא הכי מקטרי להו, וקשר כזה לא הוי סימן
By their wings. Everyone ties them this way, and a knot like this is not an identifying feature.
English rendering by Messianic Yeshiva
3. Why is the tie not enough to identify the owner here?
Bartenura describes a common way of tying the wings. It does not distinguish one owner's birds from others tied in the same way. He does not say that every possible knot on every object is useless as an identifying feature.
A worked source note: the Mishnah gives tied birds in particular locations and says not to touch them. Bartenura explains possible placement and the absence of an identifying feature. The source note holds these together; it does not replace the case with “all birds must always be left.”
4. Which sentence belongs to the Mishnah, and which to its explanation?
“One must not touch them” is the Mishnah's stated treatment. “Someone may have put them there, and removal would hinder their recovery” summarizes Bartenura's explanation. Distinguishing them lets us ask how the explanation accounts for the actual words.
Change one condition
Now use the vessel pair. The place remains a refuse heap. The object remains a vessel. What changes is whether it is covered or exposed. Bartenura explains the covered case as property preserved there; it is not the lost property addressed by “you may not turn away.”
Make the comparison independently. Cover the birds' worked note. Write the vessel's common facts, its changed condition and its two treatments. Then add one sentence naming the explanation Bartenura supplies for the covered case.
5. What should your vessel comparison preserve?
Both finds are vessels in a refuse heap. A covered vessel is left; an exposed vessel is taken and announced. Bartenura explains the covered one as guarded there. If you wrote “the covered vessel is abandoned,” replace that claim with the explanation he actually gives.
The changed condition matters. Do not flatten the pair into one rule for everything found in refuse.
6. Does the refuse heap itself make the vessel ownerless?
No. The selection gives two treatments in that same location, and neither calls the vessel the finder's property. For the exposed vessel, it explicitly says announce. Its location alone cannot support “anyone may take ownership.”
Repair a hurried account
Read this invented summary: “The Mishnah says not to bother with a covered vessel because it is worthless. Once it is exposed, it belongs to the finder.” Write two corrections before opening the check. Support each correction with a phrase from the source or the named commentary.
7. Which two claims need repair?
First, the text does not say “worthless.” Bartenura explains the covered vessel as preserved there. Second, the exposed vessel must be taken and announced; the excerpt does not assign ownership to the finder.
A corrected summary can say: “The Mishnah distinguishes covered from exposed. Bartenura explains why the covered vessel is left, while the exposed one enters the announcement process.”
Now write a three-sentence account for someone who has not read the lesson. Explain one birds case, the vessel contrast and one thing you still would need to know about an actual find. Do not copy the corrected summary; choose your own evidence.
8. How can you check your own account?
Look for one precise birds condition and its treatment; covered/exposed and both vessel treatments; and a real unanswered question. “Was it deliberately placed?” or “What features identify it?” asks about relevant facts. “It must have been discarded” supplies a conclusion without those facts.
Also label Bartenura's explanation as commentary. Your account should show how our sages protect an owner's recovery, not simply sort objects into things you want or do not want.
For an actual find, bring its location, condition and your source question to a knowledgeable rabbi. Careful observation gives that conversation something concrete to work with.
Read in context
Mishnah Bava Metzia 2:3: the complete mishnah beyond our opening selection. Bartenura on 2:3: the barrier, wall, tie, placement and covered-vessel explanations. Deuteronomy 22:1–3: the Torah's concern for returning lost property.
Review Reading a source to keep teaching, translation and commentary distinct.