Bava Metzia 15

Chapter 15

א דחזיא לקטנים

1 as it would [still] be suitable for children. But what of the case of Raba, who said that [even] if the garment was embroidered with gold it should be divided?1

ב והא דאמר רבא אם היתה טלית מוזהבת חולקין ה"נ דפלגי לה הא אפסדוה הא לא קשיא דחזיא לבני מלכים

2 Could they here also divide [the garment] in halves? They would surely render it useless! — This presents no difficulty [either], as it would still be suitable for royal children.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although a gold-embroidered garment when reduced in size by division could not be worn by ordinary children, it would still retain its value, as it could be worn by children of the aristocracy, to whom the wearing of a gold-embroidered garment would be nothing unusual. ');">2

ג והא דתנן היו שנים רוכבין על גבי בהמה וכו' הכי נמי דפלגי לה הא אפסדוה בשלמא טהורה חזיא לבשר אלא טמאה הא אפסדוה אלא לדמי הכא נמי לדמי

3 But [there is] the clause in our Mishnah: IF TWO RIDE ON AN ANIMAL [etc.]. Would you say that here also they divide [the animal] in halves? They would surely render it useless! Although it may be granted that in the case of a clean animal [its carcase] may be [cut up and] used for food — what if it is an unclean animal? They would surely render it useless [by slaying it and cutting it up]? It must therefore be said that it is the value [of the animal] that is divided. So here also: it is the value [of the bill that is divided].

ד אמר רמי בר חמא זאת אומרת המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו

4 Rami b. Hama said: This [decision of our Mishnah] enables [us] to conclude that when one picks up a found object for his neighbour, the neighbour acquires it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The decision that if two people have picked up an ownerless object they are entitled to keep it, each one taking half of its value and enabling his partner to claim the other half, must rest on the assumption that one may acquire an object for someone else by lifting up, i.e., by the same means as one acquires it for himself. ');">3

ה דאי סלקא דעתך לא קנה חבירו תיעשה זו כמי שמונחת על גבי קרקע וזו כמי שמונחת על גבי קרקע ולא יקנה לא זה ולא זה אלא לאו ש"מ המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו

5 For if you were to say that the neighbour does not acquire it, this [garment] ought to be regarded as if one half of it were [still] lying on the ground, and [also] as if the other [half] were [still] lying on the ground, so that neither the one [claimant] nor the other should acquire it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the point of view of each claimant the other person's half would have to be regarded as if it were still lying on the ground. But such an acquisition does not constitute legal possession because the law demands that we must acquire possession of the whole article in order to obtain title thereto. Consequently if a third person came and snatched the garment, neither of the two could dispute his right to claim at least half. V. infra p. 39 for further elucidation of the argument. ');">4

ו אמר רבא לעולם אימא לך המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו והכא היינו טעמא מגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה

6 It must therefore follow that when one picks up a found object for his neighbour, the neighbour acquires it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is assumed that in our Mishnah each person, when picking up the garment, intended that the other person should have half of it, and in this way the two acquired the garment. ');">5

ז תדע שאילו אמר לשלוחו צא וגנוב לי וגנב פטור ושותפין שגנבו חייבין מאי טעמא לאו משום דאמרינן מגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה ש"מ

7 Said Raba: I could still maintain that when one picks up a found object for his neighbour, the neighbour does not acquire it.6

ח אמר רבא השתא דאמרת אמרינן מגו חרש ופקח שהגביהו מציאה מתוך שקנה חרש קנה פקח

8 But here [in our Mishnah] the reason [why he does acquire it] is that we say, 'Since he takes possession for himself he may also take possession for his neighbour.'7

ט בשלמא חרש קנה דקא מגבה ליה בן דעת אלא פקח במאי קנה

9 You may learn it from [the law] that if one said to a messenger, Go and steal something for me', and he [went and] stole it, he is free,8

י אלא אימא חרש קנה פקח לא קנה ומאי מגו מגו דשני חרשין בעלמא קנו האי נמי קני

10 but if partners stole [for each other]9

יא האי מאי אם תמצא לומר המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו הני מילי היכא דקא מגבה ליה אדעתא דחבריה האי אדעתא דידיה קא מגבה ליה איהו לא קני לאחריני מקני

11 they are guilty. For what reason? Is it not because we say, 'Since he takes possession for himself, he may also take possession for his neighbour'? This proves it!

יב אלא אימא מתוך שלא קנה פקח לא קנה חרש

12 Said Raba: Now that it has been proved that we base our decisions on the Since argument.10

יג וכי תימא מאי שנא משני חרשין דעלמא התם תקינו להו רבנן דלא אתי לאנצויי הכא מימר אמר פקח לא קני אנא אקני

13 [it must be assumed that] when a deaf-mute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A deaf-mute is not a responsible person, and, like a minor and an imbecile, he cannot acquire property, but 'for practical reasons' the Rabbis laid it down that to deprive them of anything they possess is robbery (cf. Git. 59b). Applying the Miggo argument to the deaf-mute, Raba holds that 'Since he acquires it (according to rabbinic ruling) for himself, he also acquires it for his neighbour'. ');">11

יד אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב אדא לרב אשי דיוקיה דרמי בר חמא מהיכא אי נימא מרישא שנים אוחזין בטלית התם האי קאמר כולה שלי ואנא אגבהתה כולה והאי אמר כולה שלי ואנא אגבהתה כולה

14 and a normal person have picked up a found object, the normal person acquires it by reason of the fact that the deaf-mute has acquired it. [But it is at once objected:] We may grant that the deaf-mute acquires it because a rational person has lifted it up for him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The end which the normal person has picked up for himself and for the deaf-mute has been rightly acquired, so far as the deaf-mute is concerned, for the latter benefits by the right of the rational person to acquire the garment and by his own right, conceded to him by the Rabbis, to claim his own possessions 'for practical reasons'. But the normal person suffers from the disability of the deaf-mute, in so far as the right conceded to the deaf-mute to own property extends only to his own person, and does not include the right to acquire property for someone else. Therefore the end which the deaf-mute has picked up, when considered in relation to the normal person, must be regarded as if it had not been picked up at all. Thus the question arises: How does the normal person acquire the garment? ');">12

טו אלא מהא דקתני זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר כולה שלי הא תו למה לי אלא ממשנה יתירה שמע מינה המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו

15 but how does the normal person acquire it? — I must therefore say: The deaf-mute acquires it; the normal person does not acquire it.13

טז והא אוקימנא רישא במציאה וסיפא במקח וממכר

16 And how does the Since [argument] come in here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It would be impossible to argue that since the normal person acquires it for himself he also acquires it for the deaf-mute, as the normal person does not acquire it at all. ');">14

יז אלא מסיפא זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר חציה שלי הא תו למה לי אלא ממשנה יתירה שמע מינה המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו

17 — Since two other deaf-mute persons would acquire [a found object by lifting it up], this [deaf-mute] also acquires it.15

יח וממאי דבמציאה דלמא במקח וממכר

18 But how is this? Even if you say that when one lifts up a found object for his neighbour the neighbour acquires it, this is [true] only when one lifts it up on behalf of his neighbour. But [in this case] that [normal person] lifted it up on his own behalf; now, if he himself does not acquire it,16

יט וכי תימא אי במקח וממכר מאי למימרא איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא האי דקאמר חציה שלי להוי כמשיב אבידה וליפטר קמשמע לן דהאי איערומי קא מערים סבר אי אמינא כולה שלי בעינא אשתבועי אימא הכי דאהוי כמשיב אבידה ואיפטר

19 how can he enable others to acquire it? — But say: Seeing that the normal person does not acquire it, the deaf-mute does not acquire it [either]. And if you will argue: In what way does this case differ from that of the two other deaf-mute persons [previously referred to, I will answer you:] There our Rabbis made this provision17

כ אלא מהא היו שנים רוכבין על גבי בהמה הא תו למה לי אלא ממשנה יתירה שמע מינה המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו

20 in order that [the deaf-mutes] may not have to quarrel [with persons who may be ready to snatch the object from them], but here [the deaf-mute] will say [to himself]: 'The normal person does not acquire it, how should I acquire it?'18

כא ודלמא הא קמשמע לן דרוכב נמי קני

21 R. Aha, the son of R. Adda, said to R. Ashi: Whence does Rami b. Hama derive his conclusion?19

כב אלא מסיפא בזמן שהן מודין או שיש להן עדים חולקין בלא שבועה במאי אי במקח וממכר צריכא למימר אלא לאו במציאה ושמע מינה המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו

22 If we say [that he derives it] from the first clause [of our Mishnah]. TWO HOLD A GARMENT etc., [the objection would arise that] there one pleads [to the effect]. 'It is all mine, and I lifted up the whole of it,' and the other pleads [to the same effect], 'It is all mine and I lifted up the whole of it!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [A paraphrase of 'I FOUND IT'.] Each of the two claimants maintains that he lifted up the whole garment for himself and thus acquired it all, so that none of them can be said to have lifted up part of the garment for his neighbour and acquired it for him. The two claimants share the garment between them, not because one acquired it for the other, but because they both hold the garment and no third person can claim any part of it. ');">20

כג ורבא אמר לך מגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה:

23 — Therefore [we must say that he derives it] from the clause which reads: ONE OF THEM SAYS IT IS ALL MINE,' AND THE OTHER SAYS, 'IT IS ALL MINE': what need is there again for this? It must therefore be that we are to learn from the additional clause that if one lifts up a found object for his neighbour, the neighbour acquires It — 21 But did we not come to the conclusion that the first clause deals with a case of finding, and that the subsequent clause deals with a case of buying and selling? — We must therefore say that [he derives it] from the second part [of the Mishnah]: IF ONE SAYS, 'IT IS ALL MINE', AND THE OTHER SAYS 'HALF OF IT IS MINE': what need is there again for this? It must therefore be that we are to learn from the additional clause that if one lifts up a found object for his neighbour, the neighbour acquires it. And how do you know that this clause deals with a case of finding? Maybe it deals with a case of buying and selling? And if you will say: If it deals with a case of buying and selling what need is there [for the case] to be stated? [I will answer:] There is a need. For I might have formed the opinion that the one who says, HALF OF IT IS MINE should be considered as the restorer of a lost object,22

כד היו שנים רוכבין: אמר רב יוסף אמר לי רב יהודה

24 and should be free [from taking an oath]. We are thus informed that [he has to swear, as] he may be employing a ruse, in that he might think: If I say 'It is all mine,' I shall have to swear; I will say thus,23 so that I shall be like a restorer of a lost object, and I shall be free [from taking an oath]. Therefore [we must say that he derives it] from this clause: IF TWO RIDE ON AN ANIMAL etc.: what need is there again for this? It must therefore be that we are to learn from the additional clause that if one lifts up a found object for his neighbour, the neighbour acquires it. But perhaps [this clause] is to let us know that a rider also acquires [found property]?24 Therefore [we must say that he derives it] from the last clause: IF BOTH ADMIT [EACH OTHER'S CLAIMS], OR IF THEY HAVE WITNESSES [TO ESTABLISH THEIR CLAIMS], THEY RECEIVE THEIR SHARES WITHOUT AN OATH. To which case does it refer? If it refers to [a case of] buying and selling — is it necessary to state it?25 It must therefore refer to [a case of] finding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is necessary to state the law, in order to let us know that both have acquired the garment, and no one has a right to snatch it away from them, on the principle that 'if one lifts up a found object for his neighbour, the neighbour acquires it.' ');">26 and this proves that if one lifts up a found object for his neighbour, the neighbour acquires it. And Raba?27 — He will explain [the decision in the last clause of our Mishnah] by the principle [adopted by him]: Since he takes possession of it for himself, he may take possession of it also for his neighbour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although Raba denies that one may acquire an ownerless object for a neighbour by lifting it up for him, he admits that when one lifts up an object for himself and his neighbour, the neighbour also acquires it, as explained above, and the last clause of our Mishnah is needed in order to establish this law. ');">28 IF TWO RIDE [etc.]. R. Joseph said: Rab Judah told me,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter