Stop, Thief
‘Are Identifying Marks Biblical or Rabbinic’
(Bava Metzia 18b)
Our daf considers whether identifying marks – simanim – are a means of biblically valid identification or are only valid due to a rabbinic enactment.
Thus, if the use of simanim (to identify a lost object) were used in the case of monetary matters as a rabbinic enactment, they would be relied upon. This is because the Sages are empowered to enact monetary procedures without a biblical source (Rambam, Hilchos Sanhedrin chap. 24:6, based on Gittin 36b).
However, as related to prohibitory laws – dinei issur, i.e., identifying a lost get – and attempting to subsequently use such a document to prove the divorce of a certain woman, identifying marks would have no validity.
Testimony or Simanim?
Similarly, we find later in the Gemara (infra 27b) that a siman alone should not be valid to identify a corpse and thus allow a woman to remarry. Rather, if witnesses come who recognize the general features of the corpse as that of the husband of the woman in question, then this would provide sufficient reason to permit her to remarry.
The Gemara there (infra 27b), concludes that even if such simanim are rabbinic, a corpse could be identified through a siman muvhak – a unique identifying mark (see Rashi 27b – s.v. “Muvhak”).
To Return or Not to Return
The early authorities (Tosafos – s.v. “veha yahivna,” Rashba and Ran ad loc.) are similarly of the opinion that returning a lost object via a siman muvhak would suffice.
Pnei Yehoshua (ad loc. 27b – s.v. “chamur b’simanei okef”) differentiates between the need to identify a lost object and the need to identify a corpse. As relates to a corpse, proper identification is required only to prevent mistaken identity. If one identifies a corpse by means of a very general identifying mark, i.e., the dead person was tall and indeed this corpse is tall, this does not allow the woman to remarry, for perhaps this corpse before us is another tall man but not her husband.
On the other hand, in the case of a lost article, we require proper and detailed identification to ensure that the claimant is not a thief falsely trying to claim the lost article as his own.
What He Once Saw
Pnei Yehoshua goes even further and disputes the views of the other authorities (Tosafos, Rashba and Ran), possibly even where the claimant provides a detailed identification – a siman muvhak – we still do not award him the article in question. Why? He possibly once saw the article and is aware of all its distinct identifying marks.
