Q&A: Bava Metzia 27a: An Unnecessary Derivation?
Bava Metzia 27a: An Unnecessary Derivation?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
The Talmud derives from the verse, "and so shall you do with his donkey," that even if he gave identifying marks / witnesses regarding the saddle, and not of the donkey itself, we return it to him. What is the need for this derivation—isn't it obvious? Especially in light of what the Talmud writes, that people do not lend saddles because it causes sores to the donkey. (And if that were not so, then the novelty really would not be understood.)
Thank you
Answer
We learn that a lost item is returned even on the basis of identifying marks on something secondary to it (this is Maimonides' wording). Especially since at this point they are dealing with the view that identifying marks are Torah-level, we might have thought that only identifying marks on the item itself are Torah-level. But when the identifying marks are on something secondary, one should be concerned about lending even when it is uncommon, since in the end this is only a majority assumption and not like witnesses, and therefore one should not rely on it on the Torah level. The Talmud therefore teaches us that such identifying marks, which are based on the majority assumption that people do not usually lend a saddle, are sufficient (especially since in practice we do not follow the majority in monetary matters).