Return Receipt Requested?—JT Baba Metzia 2:5 (7a)—#46

Shimon b. Shetach was employed in flax [to support himself]. His students said to him, “Rabbi, lessen your workload. We will buy you a donkey and you will not have to work as much.” They went and bought him a donkey from a Saracen [Arab]. A pearl was hanging on it. They came to him and said, “From now on you will not have to work.” He said to them, “Why?” They told him, “We bought you a donkey from a Saracen and hanging on it was a pearl.” He said to them, “Did its owner know about [the pearl]?” They said to him, “No.” He said to them, “Go and return it.”

INTRODUCTION

Our story comes from the Jerusalem Talmud (also known as the Talmud of Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel), which was completed some time around the year 400 C.E., two centuries earlier than its Babylonian cousin. The Yerushalmi, as it is known, is considerably shorter than the Bavli (the Babylonian Talmud) and has a very different flavor. It contains more narratives and far fewer lengthy, technical discussions and arguments. It follows the same Mishnah, though there are some small variations in the text and the order of material. As we would expect, the Yerushalmi reflects the culture of Eretz Yisrael during the period 200 C.E. (when the Mishnah was completed) through 400 C.E., while the Bavli reflects the culture of Babylonia.

Torah establishes the obligation of hashavat aveidah (returning lost articles) in Deuteronomy 22:1-4. The Babylonian Talmud discusses, at great length, when we are obligated to locate the owner—primarily, if there are identifying marks on the object, such as a wallet with ID—and when we are not, such as scattered dollar bills in the park with no clue as to the owner. Since the scattered bills have no distinguishing mark (siman) to identify them, the owner is presumed to have given up hope (ye’ush) of recovering them. The money therefore becomes ownerless (hefker). However, if we find twenty $10 bills rolled up and secured with a red rubber band, that is an item that is considered to have a simon because the owner can accurately describe it so that the finder recognizes it from the description. There is no ye’ush in this case; the owner certainly hopes to recover the lost money. We are to understand that the pearl hanging around the donkey’s neck has no distinctive characteristics, and hence R. Shimon b. Shetach is technically not obligated to return it.

COMMENTARY

Shimon b. Shetach’s students want to ease his work burden so he can devote more of his time to Torah study. Toward that end, they buy him the latest work-saving appliance: a donkey. The seller sold them the donkey with a valuable pearl hanging around the animal’s neck that he didn’t notice. The gem was not intended to be part of the sale. When the students present the donkey to Shimon b. Shetach, they are clearly very pleased with themselves. They tell him that his days of hard work are over. He asks why, and they explain that not only is R. Shimon now the proud owner of a late model donkey, but the pearl around its neck is worth a great deal of money. R. Shimon could cash in the pearl and virtually retire on the proceeds. R. Shimon asks them curtly, “Does the seller know about this pearl?” meaning: Did he intend to include it in the deal? They say no. R. Shimon thereupon instructs them to return the pearl to the seller because it is not rightfully his.

But is this the case? The owner placed the pearl around the animal’s neck and sold it that way. Strictly speaking, he sold the animal “as is” — and that would include the pearl. 

But R. Shimon b. Shetach is not satisfied with fulfilling merely the letter of the law. He insists upon lifnim mi-shurat ha-din, going beyond the letter of law. I would imagine he thought to himself: “Did the owner of the donkey intend to include the pearl in the bargain? Certainly not. My students could claim it was sloppy of him and his tough luck, but morally, that would be callous. After all, who hasn’t felt less than 100% and made careless mistakes, or overlooked something when distracted? The owner surely intended to sell only the donkey, and that is all I have a right to.”

Another interesting aspect of this story is revealed by comparing it with another version found in midrash Bereishit Rabbah 3:3. In this version, R. Shimon himself purchases the donkey from an Arab, unaware of the gem hanging around the animal’s neck. His students discover it and quote Proverbs 10:22 to him: It is the blessing of God that enriches: You hit the jackpot! He rejects their assumption that it is God’s will that he possess the gem, explaining that he bought only the donkey, but not the gem. When he returns it, the grateful seller exclaims, “Blessed is the God of Shimon b. Shetach.” The midrash comments: “Thus from the faithfulness of a human being we learn the faithfulness of God, who is faithful to pay Israel the reward for the mitzvot that they do” — suggesting that R. Shimon will be rewarded for doing the right thing, if not in this life, then in the world-to-come.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Have you ever found a valuable object? What did you do to find the owner?
2. Would you have acted as R Shimon did? Would your decision differ if the pearl were worth $500 or $5,000? Would your decision differ depending upon who the seller was? Whether the seller was rich or poor? Whether the seller was a friend or stranger?
3. Do you think that R. Shimon b. Shetach’s decision was, at least in part, in response to his realization that his students knew at the time they purchased the donkey that they were taking possession of a pearl they had not agreed to purchase?