Commentary for Bava Metzia 52:14

הלוקח פירות מחבירו וכו': אמר ריש לקיש משום רבי ינאי לא שנו אלא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN FINDS [AN ARTICLE] IN A SHOP, IT BELONGS TO HIM:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to an article which cannot be identified. Since any customer might have dropped it, the shopkeeper has no particular claim to it; whilst the loser must have abandoned it, since it bears no mark of identification. Asheri, however, maintains that it refers even to an article which can be identified, because the loser argues to himself, 'In all probability the shopkeeper would have been the first to find it, and since I have complained of my loss in his presence and he has not responded, he evidently intends to keep it.' Therefore the loser abandons it, and so the finder may keep it. (V. supra 26a for a similar argument.) ');">¹³</span> BETWEEN THE COUNTER AND THE SHOPKEEPER ['S SEAT], TO THE SHOPKEEPER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Customers having no access to that spot, the shopkeeper must have dropped it there. ');">¹⁴</span> [IF HE FINDS IT] IN FRONT OF A MONEY-CHANGER, IT BELONGS TO HIM [THE FINDER]; BETWEEN THE STOOL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The chest attached to the table in front of the money-changer, wherein the money was placed; v. Krauss, TA, II. 411.] ');">¹⁵</span> AND THE MONEY-CHANGER, TO THE MONEY-CHANGER. IF ONE BUYS PRODUCE FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR, OR IF HIS NEIGHBOUR SENDS HIM PRODUCE, AND HE FINDS MONEY THEREIN, IT IS HIS. BUT IF THEY [THE COINS] ARE TIED UP, HE MUST TAKE AND PROCLAIM THEM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The manner of tying, or the number of coins, can prove ownership. ');">¹⁶</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Eleazar said: Even if they [the articles found] are lying on the [money-changer's] table [they belong to the finder]. We learnt: [IF HE FINDS IT] IN FRONT OF A MONEY-CHANGER, IT BELONGS TO HIM. [This implies,] but if it was on the table, it belongs to the money-changer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'IN FRONT' denotes on the ground. ');">¹⁷</span> Then consider the second clause: BETWEEN THE STOOL AND THE MONEY-CHANGER, TO THE MONEY-CHANGER; [implying,] but if on the table, it is his [the finder's], But [in truth] no inference can be drawn from this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It neither refutes nor supports R. Eleazar. ');">¹⁸</span> And whence does R. Eleazar know this? — Said Raba: Our Mishnah presented to him a difficulty. Why teach particularly, BETWEEN THE STOOL AND THE MONEY-CHANGER. IT BELONGS TO THE MONEY-CHANGER? Let it state. 'on the table,' or, 'If one finds [an article] in a money-changer's shop.' just as the first clause teaches, IF ONE FINDS [AN ARTICLE] IN A SHOP, IT BELONGS TO HIM. Hence it must follow that even if it lay on the table, it is his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., these difficulties force him to translate 'IN FRONT OF A MONEY-CHANGER as meaning even on his table, though generally the phrase connotes on the ground. ');">¹⁹</span> IF ONE BUYS PRODUCE FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR etc. Resh Lakish said on R. Jannai's authority: This refers only

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 52:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.