Q&A: A Lost Item in a Rented House
A Lost Item in a Rented House
Question
If he rented it out to others, then even if he found it inside the house, it belongs to him — Mishnah Bava Metzia 26a.
The Talmud on this law in the Mishnah offers several interpretive qualifications.
1. It is speaking about an inn, not a house.
2. It is speaking about three idol-worshippers.
3. Alternatively, it is speaking about three Jews.
4. It is speaking about an amount worth less than a perutah that each one has.
It seems as though the sages of Babylonia are trying to uproot the law that appears in the Mishnah. That is, the possibility that the law stated in the Mishnah is speaking about less than a perutah seems weak. Therefore, in my opinion, it seems that there is a desire to uproot the entire law that appears in the Mishnah. Is my thinking correct? Thanks in advance.
Answer
I did not understand the claim. What does it mean that they are trying to uproot it? It is exactly the opposite: the law in the Mishnah is problematic, and they are looking for a way to explain it, and they do so by means of interpretive qualifications.
To understand the issue of an interpretive qualification, see my article here: