## Bava Metzia Daf 27a

###### Bava Metzia 27a:1
[Bava Metzia 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:1)

בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַתַּגָּר, אֲבָל בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת – חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר. וְכֵן תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִן הַתַּגָּר, אֲבָל בְּלוֹקֵחַ מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת – חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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:** The Sages **taught** 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.


###### Bava Metzia 27a:2
[Bava Metzia 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: וְכִי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת בְּעַצְמוֹ דָּשָׁן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶיסְמְיַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, תִּתַּרְגַּם מַתְנִיתִין כְּגוֹן שֶׁדָּשָׁן עַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 maidservant,** and therefore any coins found intermingled with the produce belong to the owner.


###### Bava Metzia 27a:3
[Bava Metzia 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** אַף הַשִּׂמְלָה הָיְתָה בִּכְלַל כׇּל אֵלּוּ, וְלָמָּה יָצָאת? לְהַקִּישׁ אֵלֶיהָ, לוֹמַר לְךָ: מָה שִׂמְלָה מְיוּחֶדֶת, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ סִימָנִין וְיֵשׁ לָהּ תּוֹבְעִין, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סִימָנִין וְיֵשׁ לוֹ תּוֹבְעִים חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** This mishna is an excerpt from a halakhic midrash concerning lost items, based on the verse: “You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep wandering, and disregard them; you shall return them to your brother…And so shall you do with his donkey; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with every lost item of your brother, which shall 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.


###### Bava Metzia 27a:4
[Bava Metzia 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי ״בִּכְלַל כׇּל אֵלּוּ״? אָמַר רָבָא: בִּכְלַל ״כׇּל אֲבֵדַת אָחִיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** When the mishna says that the garment was included **in the generalization** that one must return **all of these** items, in **what** generalization is it included? **Rava said:** It is included **in the generalization:** “And so shall you do with his donkey; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with **every lost item of your brother,** which shall be lost from him, and you have found it; you may not disregard it” (Deuteronomy 22:3).


###### Bava Metzia 27a:5
[Bava Metzia 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שׁוֹר״, ״חֲמוֹר״, ״שֶׂה״ וְ״שִׂמְלָה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Why do I** need all the specific items **that the Merciful One writes** that one must return: **An ox, a donkey, a sheep, and a garment?** One of them would seem to suffice.


###### Bava Metzia 27a:6
[Bava Metzia 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:6)

צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא שִׂמְלָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּעֵדִים דְּגוּפַהּ וְסִימָנִין דְּגוּפַהּ. אֲבָל חֲמוֹר בְּעֵדִים דְּאוּכָּף וְסִימָנִין דְּאוּכָּף, אֵימָא לָא מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֲמוֹר״ דַּאֲפִילּוּ חֲמוֹר בְּסִימָנֵי הָאוּכָּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava answers: They **are** all **necessary,** as a unique *halakha* is derived from each example. **As, if the Merciful One had written** only **“garment,” I would say: This matter,** i.e., the mitzva to return a lost item, **applies** only in a case **where** the owner brings **witnesses** capable of testifying **about** the item **itself or** he describes **distinguishing marks concerning** the item **itself; but** with regard to returning **a donkey** to its owner in a case **where** he brings **witnesses with regard to the saddle or** describes **distinguishing marks concerning the saddle** and not on the donkey, **say** that **we do not return** the donkey **to** the owner. To counter this, **the Merciful One writes: “Donkey,”** from which it is derived **that a donkey** is returned to its owner **even** in a case **where** he describes **distinguishing marks** on **the saddle.**


###### Bava Metzia 27a:7
[Bava Metzia 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:7)

״שׁוֹר״ וָ״שֶׂה״, דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? ״שׁוֹר״ – דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְגִיזַּת זְנָבוֹ, וְ״שֶׂה״ – לְגִיזּוֹתָיו. וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״שׁוֹר״, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְגִיזַּת זְנָבוֹ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן ״שֶׂה״ לְגִיזּוֹתָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: With regard to the specific mentions of **“ox” and “sheep” that the Merciful One writes, why do I** need them? Rava answers: From **“ox”** it is derived **that** one must return **even the sheared** wool **of its tail; and** from **“sheep”** it is derived **that** one must return even **its sheared** wool. The Gemara challenges: **And let the Merciful One write** only **“ox,”** from which it is derived **that** one must return **even the sheared** wool **of its tail, and** derive **all the more so that** one must return the more substantial **sheared** wool **of a sheep.**


###### Bava Metzia 27a:8
[Bava Metzia 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:8)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: ״חֲמוֹר״ דְּבוֹר לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְ״שֶׂה״ דַאֲבֵידָה – לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** The term **“donkey”** stated **with regard to** damage in the category of **Pit, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** (see Exodus 21:33 and Bava Kamma 54a), **and** the term **“sheep”** stated **with regard to a lost item, according to** the opinion of **everyone,** are **difficult.** There is no explanation for why they are stated.


###### Bava Metzia 27a:9
[Bava Metzia 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:9)

וְאֵימָא לִגְלָלִים הוּא דַּאֲתָא? גְּלָלִים – אַפְקוֹרֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ. וְדִילְמָא לְסִימָנִין הוּא דַּאֲתָא, דְּאִיבַּעְיָא לַן: סִימָנִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אוֹ דְרַבָּנַן. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שֶׂה״, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּסִימָנִין מַהְדְּרִינַן, וְסִימָנִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And say** that the term “sheep” **comes to** teach the obligation to return the animal’s **dung?** The Gemara answers: One need not return **dung,** because the owner has **renounced its ownership.** The Gemara suggests: **And perhaps** the term “sheep” **comes to** teach the obligation to return an item based on its owner providing **distinguishing marks, as we raised a dilemma:** Is the *halakha* that an item can be identified using **distinguishing marks by Torah law or** is it **by rabbinic law?** Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “Sheep”** in order to teach **that** it is not only through the testimony of witnesses, but **even** based **on distinguishing marks** that **we return** lost items to their owner. Resolve the dilemma **and** conclude that the *halakha* that an item can be identified using **distinguishing marks** is **by Torah law.**


###### Bava Metzia 27a:10
[Bava Metzia 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:10)

אָמְרִי: מִדְּקָתָנֵי לְהוּ תַּנָּא, לְסִימָנִין גַּבֵּי שִׂמְלָה, דְּקָתָנֵי: מָה שִׂמְלָה מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ סִימָנִין וְיֵשׁ לָהּ תּוֹבְעִין – חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סִימָנִין וְיֵשׁ לוֹ תּוֹבְעִין – חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּ״שֶׂה״ לָאו לְסִימָנִין הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof. The Sages **say:** One can understand the matter **from** the fact **that the *tanna* teaches** the concept of **distinguishing marks together** with the term **garment.** As **it is taught** in the mishna: **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. **Conclude from it that** the term **“sheep” does not come to** teach the obligation to return an item based on its owner providing **distinguishing marks.**


###### Bava Metzia 27a:11
[Bava Metzia 27a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:11)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאבַד״ – פְּרָט לַאֲבֵידָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״ – פְּרָט לַאֲבֵידָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And so shall you do with his donkey; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with every lost item of your brother, **which shall be lost** from him, and you have found it” (Deuteronomy 22:3). The Rabbis derive that this phrase serves **to exclude a lost item in which there is not the value of one *peruta*,** which due to its negligible value is not considered lost. **Rabbi Yehuda says** that this *halakha* is derived from the conclusion of that verse: “Which shall be lost from him, **and you have found it.”** The term “and you have found it” serves **to exclude a lost item in which there is not the value of one *peruta*.**


###### Bava Metzia 27a:12
[Bava Metzia 27a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:12)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. מָר נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאבַד״ וּמָר נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the practical difference **between** the two opinions? Ostensibly, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda both state the same *halakha*. **Abaye said:** There is no practical difference. Rather, the **interpretation of the meaning** of the verse **is** the difference **between** them. One **Sage,** the Rabbis, **derives it from** the phrase: **“Which shall be lost** from him”; **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda, **derives it from** the term: **“And you have found it.”**


###### Bava Metzia 27a:13
[Bava Metzia 27a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:13)

וּלְמַאן דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאבַד״ הַאי ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the first Sage, the Rabbis, **who derives** the *halakha* that one need not return a lost item worth less than one *peruta* **from** the phrase **“which shall be lost** from him,” **what does he do with** the term: **“And you have found it”?**


###### Bava Metzia 27a:14
[Bava Metzia 27a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:14)

הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבְנַאי, דְּאָמַר רַבְנַאי: ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״ – דַּאֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: According to the Rabbis, **that** term **is necessary for** the derivation of the *halakha* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbenai. As Rabbenai says** in interpreting the verse: “And so shall you do with every lost item of your brother’s, which he has lost, and you have found it” (Deuteronomy 22:3), that the term **“and you have found it” means that** it assumes the status of a found item only **when** it actually **enters his possession.**


###### Bava Metzia 27a:15
[Bava Metzia 27a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:15)

וּלְמַאן דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״, הַאי ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאבַד״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** Rabbi Yehuda, **who derives** the *halakha* that one need not return a lost item worth less than one *peruta* from the term: **“And you have found it,” what does he do with** the phrase: **“Which has been lost** from him”?


###### Bava Metzia 27a:16
[Bava Metzia 27a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:16)

מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: מִנַּיִין לַאֲבֵידָה שֶׁשְּׁטָפָהּ נָהָר שֶׁהִיא מוּתֶּרֶת? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְכׇל אֲבֵדַת אָחִיךָ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאבַד מִמֶּנּוּ וּמְצָאתָהּ״ – מִי שֶׁאֲבוּדָה הֵימֶנּוּ וּמְצוּיָה אֵצֶל כׇּל אָדָם, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁאֲבוּדָה הֵימֶנּוּ וְאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה אֵצֶל כׇּל אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehuda, **that** phrase **is necessary for** the derivation of the *halakha* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From where** is it derived **with regard to a lost item that the river swept away that it is permitted** for its finder to keep it? It is derived from this verse, **as it is written:** “And so shall you do with his donkey; and so shall you do with his garment; and **so shall you do with every lost item of your brother, which shall be lost from him, and you have found it”** (Deuteronomy 22:3). The verse states that one must return **that which is lost from him,** the owner, **but is** available to be **found by any person. Excluded** from that obligation is **that which is lost from him and is not** available to be **found by any person;** it is ownerless property and anyone who finds it may keep it.


###### Bava Metzia 27a:17
[Bava Metzia 27a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:17)

וְאִידַּךְ, הָא דְּרַבְנַאי מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the other** *tanna*, Rabbi Yehuda, who derived from the term: “And you have found it,” that one need not return a lost item worth less than one *peruta*, **from where** does he derive the *halakha* **of Rabbenai** that the item assumes the status of a found item only when it actually comes into his possession? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda **derives it from** the superfluous conjunction “and” in the term **“and you have found it.”**


###### Bava Metzia 27a:18
[Bava Metzia 27a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:18)

וְאִידַּךְ, הָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ ״מִמֶּנּוּ״. וְאִידָּךְ? ״מִמֶּנּוּ״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **And the other** *tanna*, the first *tanna*, who derives from the phrase “which shall be lost from him” that one need not return a lost item worth less than one *peruta*, **from where** do they derive the *halakha* **of Rabbi Yoḥanan that** one need not return an item that is lost from him and is not available to be found by every person? The Gemara answers: He **derives it** from the superfluous term **“from him,”** in the phrase “which shall be lost from him.” **And** as **for the other** *tanna*, Rabbi Yehuda, **he does not learn** anything from the term **“from him.”**


###### Bava Metzia 27a:19
[Bava Metzia 27a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:19)

רָבָא אָמַר: פְּרוּטָה שֶׁהוּזְלָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאבַד״ – אִיכָּא, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״ – לֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye explained that there is no practical difference between the opinion of the first *tanna* and Rabbi Yehuda. By contrast, **Rava said:** The practical difference **between them** is with regard to an item that was worth **one *peruta*** when it was lost but **that was** then **devalued** and was worth less than one *peruta* when it was found. According to **the one who says** that the *halakha* that one need not return a lost item worth less than one *peruta* is derived **from** the phrase **“which shall be lost** from him,” **there is** an obligation to return the item, as that verse is referring to the value of the item when it was lost. **And** according to **the one who says** that the *halakha* that one need not return a lost item worth less than one *peruta* is derived **from** the phrase: **“And you have found it,” there is no** obligation to return the item, as that verse is referring to the value of the item when it is found.


###### Bava Metzia 27a:20
[Bava Metzia 27a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:20)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאבַד״ – הָא בָּעֵינַן ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״, וְלֵיכָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** even **according to the one who says** that the *halakha* is derived **from** the phrase **“which shall be lost** from him,” **do we not require** the item to be worth one *peruta* when it is found, based on the term **“and you have found it”? And** in this case, **it is not** worth one *peruta* when it is found, so he should agree that it need not be returned.


###### Bava Metzia 27a:21
[Bava Metzia 27a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:21)

אֶלָּא: פְּרוּטָה שֶׁהוּקְרָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, מַאן דְּאָמַר ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״ – אִיכָּא, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאבַד״ – לֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the practical difference **between them** is with regard to an item worth less than **one *peruta*** when it was lost **that appreciated in value** and is worth one *peruta* when it is found. According to **the one who says** that the *halakha* that one need not return a lost item worth less than one *peruta* is derived from the term: **“And you have found it,” there is** an obligation to return the item, as that verse is referring to its value when it is found. **And** according to **the one who says** that the *halakha* that one need not return a lost item worth less than one *peruta* is derived **from** the phrase: **“Which shall be lost** from him,” **there is no** obligation to return the item, as that verse is referring to the value of the item when it was lost.


###### Bava Metzia 27a:22
[Bava Metzia 27a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:22)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״, הָא בָּעֵינַן ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאבַד״ וְלֵיכָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** even **according to the one who says** that the *halakha* is derived **from** the term **“and you have found it,” do we not require** the item to be worth one *peruta* when it is lost, based on the phrase **“which shall be lost** from him”? **And** in this case, **it is not** worth one *peruta* when it was lost, so he should agree that it need not be returned.


###### Bava Metzia 27a:23
[Bava Metzia 27a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:23)

אֶלָּא פְּרוּטָה שֶׁהוּקְרָה וְהוּזְלָה וְחָזְרָה וְהוּקְרָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאבַד״ – אִיכָּא. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״ – בָּעֵינַן דְּאִית בַּהּ שִׁיעוּר מְצִיאָה מִשְּׁעַת אֲבֵידָה וְעַד שְׁעַת מְצִיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the practical difference **between them** is with regard to the case of an item worth **one *peruta*** when it was lost **that appreciated in value and was devalued** in the interim and was worth less than one *peruta*, **and** then **appreciated in value** and is worth one *peruta* when it is found. According to **the one who says** that the *halakha* that one need not return a lost item worth less than one *peruta* is derived from the phrase: **“Which shall be lost** from him,” **there is** an obligation to return the item, as the verse is referring to its value only when it was lost and when it is found. **And** according to **the one who says** that the *halakha* that one need not return a lost item worth less than one *peruta* is derived from: **“And you have found it,”** there is no obligation to return the item, as **we require that there will be the value** of one *peruta*, the requisite **measure** of **a lost item, from the time of** its **loss and until the time of** its **finding,** as the conjunction “and” connects the time of the finding to the time of the loss.


###### Bava Metzia 27a:24
[Bava Metzia 27a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/27a:24)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: סִימָנִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אוֹ דְרַבָּנַן? מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised** before the Sages: Is identification of an item on the basis of **distinguishing marks by Torah law or** is it **by rabbinic law?** The Gemara asks: **What difference is** there whether it is by Torah law or by rabbinic law?