‘Stop, Thief!’
‘Are Identifying Marks Biblical Or Rabbinic?’
(Bava Metzia 18b)
Our daf considers whether identifying marks – simanim – verify the nature of an object biblically or due to rabbinic enactment.
When it comes to monetary matters (to identify a lost object, for example), the answer has no practical relevance since the sages are empowered to enact monetary procedures without a biblical source (Rambam, Hilchos Sanhedrin 24:6, based on Gittin 36b).
However, when it comes to dinei issur (e.g., identifying a lost get), simanim can only be used if they are biblically-sanctioned.
Testimony Or Simanim?
The Gemara (infra. 27b) states that a siman alone cannot be sued to identify a corpse as the husband of a particular woman, thus permitting her to remarry in the future. Rather, witnesses need to come forward who recognize the general features of the corpse as that of the husband of the woman in question. Only then is she permitted to remarry.
To Return Or Not To Return
Early authorities (Tosafos, s.v. “veha yahivna…,” Rashba, and Ran ad loc.) maintain that one needs a siman muvhak – a unique identifying mark – to return a lost object to its owner.
The Pnei Yehoshua (ad loc. 27b – s.v. “chamur b’simanei okef”) differentiates between identifying a lost object and identifying a corpse. In identifying a dead man, our main concern is that the identification be correct – that he indeed be the husband of the woman who may wish to remarry in the future and needs to know if her husband is deceased or not. In identifying a lost object, in contrast, our main concern is that the person claiming the object not be a thief.
What He Once Saw
Indeed, the Pnei Yehoshua argues that insofar as a lost object is concerned, providing a siman muvhak is insufficient since the claimant might have once seen the article and be familiar with all its distinct identifying marks even though he isn’t the true owner.