Igros Moshe OC 2:235
אגרות משה, או"ח ב׳:רל״ה
Igros Moshe OC 2:235
Talmudic sources address the halakhic status of lost items that bear distinguishing features. When an object has identifying marks, Jewish law treats it differently than unmarked lost property, affecting concepts of ownership recovery and despair.
בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סִימָן – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא הָוֵי יֵאוּשׁ
Opens as a working sheet — explore, annotate, and export.
אגרות משה, או"ח ב׳:רל״ה
Igros Moshe OC 2:235
בבא מציעא כ״א ב — ד"ה בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סִימָן – כּוּלֵּי
Bava Metzia 21b:2
An item with a distinguishing mark is not subject to the halakhic concept of despair (yeaush) according to all authorities, because when the owner learns it fell from his possession, he does not despair of recovery but rather intends to identify it by its mark and reclaim it from whoever finds it.
בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סִימָן – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא הָוֵי יֵאוּשׁ. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּשַׁמְעִינֵיהּ דְּמִיָּאַשׁ לְסוֹף, לָא הָוֵי יֵאוּשׁ, דְּכִי אֲתָא לִידֵיהּ – בְּאִיסּוּרָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא לִידֵיהּ, דִּלְכִי יָדַע דִּנְפַל מִינֵּיהּ לָא מִיָּאַשׁ, מֵימָר אָמַר: סִימָנָא אִית לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ, יָהֵבְנָא סִימָנָא וְשָׁקֵילְנָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara limits the scope of the dispute. In the case of an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, everyone agrees that despair that is not conscious is not considered despair. And even though we hear that he ultimately despairs of recovering the item, it is not considered despair, as when the item came into the possession of the finder, it was in a prohibited manner that it came into his possession. It is prohibited because when the owner learns that it fell from his possession, he does not despair of its recovery immediately. Instead, he says: I have a distinguishing mark on the item; I will provide the distinguishing mark to the finder, and I will take it.