Bava Metzia 3
מתני׳ <big><strong>שנים</strong></big> אוחזין בטלית זה אומר אני מצאתיה וזה אומר אני מצאתיה זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר כולה שלי זה ישבע שאין לו בה פחות מחציה וזה ישבע שאין לו בה פחות מחציה ויחלוקו
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. TWO [PERSONS APPEARING BEFORE A COURT] HOLD A GARMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that they are both in actual possession — otherwise the one in actual possession would have the stronger claim. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר חציה שלי האומר כולה שלי ישבע שאין לו בה פחות משלשה חלקים והאומר חציה שלי ישבע שאין לו בה פחות מרביע זה נוטל שלשה חלקים וזה נוטל רביע
ONE OF THEM SAYS, 'I FOUND IT', AND THE OTHER SAYS, 'I FOUND IT'; ONE OF THEM SAYS, 'IT IS ALL MINE', AND THE OTHER SAYS, 'IT IS ALL MINE', THEN THE ONE SHALL SWEAR THAT HIS SHARE IN IT IS NOT LESS THAN HALF, AND THE OTHER SHALL SWEAR THAT HIS SHARE IN IT IS NOT LESS THAN HALF, AND [THE VALUE OF THE GARMENT] SHALL THEN BE DIVIDED BETWEEN THEM. IF ONE SAYS, 'IT IS ALL MINE', AND THE OTHER SAYS, 'HALF OF IT IS MINE', HE WHO SAYS, 'IT IS ALL MINE' SHALL SWEAR THAT HIS SHARE IN IT IS NOT LESS THAN THREE QUARTERS, AND HE WHO SAYS, 'HALF OF IT IS MINE' SHALL SWEAR THAT HIS SHARE IN IT IS NOT LESS THAN A QUARTER. THE FORMER THEN RECEIVES THREE QUARTERS [OF THE VALUE OF THE GARMENT] AND THE LATTER RECEIVES ONE QUARTER. IF TWO RIDE ON AN ANIMAL, OR ONE RIDES AND THE OTHER LEADS IT, AND ONE OF THEM SAYS, 'IT IS ALL MINE', AND THE OTHER SAYS, 'IT IS ALL MINE', THEN THE ONE SHALL SWEAR THAT HIS SHARE IN IT IS NOT LESS THAN HALF, AND THE OTHER SHALL SWEAR THAT HIS SHARE IN IT IS NOT LESS THAN HALF, AND [THE VALUE OF THE ANIMAL] SHALL THEN BE DIVIDED BETWEEN THEM. IF BOTH ADMIT [EACH OTHER'S CLAIMS] OR IF THEY HAVE WITNESSES [TO ESTABLISH THEIR CLAIMS] THEY RECEIVE THEIR SHARES WITHOUT AN OATH.
היו שנים רוכבין על גבי בהמה או שהיה אחד רוכב ואחד מנהיג זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר כולה שלי זה ישבע שאין לו בה פחות מחציה וזה ישבע שאין לו בה פחות מחציה ויחלוקו
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What need is there [for the Mishnah] to [give two pleas of the litigants and] state: ONE OF THEM SAYS, 'I FOUND IT', AND THE OTHER SAYS, 'I FOUND IT', ONE OF THEM SAYS, 'IT IS ALL MINE', AND THE OTHER SAYS, 'IT IS ALL MINE'? Surely one plea would have been sufficient! — It is only one plea: One says 'I found it and [therefore] it is all mine', and the other says 'I found it, and [therefore] it is all mine'! But why not just state 'I found it', and it will be understood that the intention is to claim the whole garment? — The term 'I FOUND IT' might have been explained as denoting 'I saw it', the mere seeing [of the garment] entitling him to claim it as his possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the other man has taken hold of it first. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
בזמן שהם מודים או שיש להן עדים חולקין בלא שבועה:
Therefore the plea 'IT IS ALL MINE' is added, so as to make clear that seeing alone does not constitute a claim. But how could it be thought that one who has only seen [the garment] could plead 'I found it'? Does not Rabbannai<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 113b; [MS.M.: Rabina. V. D.S. a. l.]. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> למה לי למתנא זה אומר אני מצאתיה וזה אומר אני מצאתיה זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר כולה שלי ליתני חדא חדא קתני זה אומר אני מצאתיה וכולה שלי וזה אומר אני מצאתיה וכולה שלי
say that the phrase and thou hast found it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 3. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
וליתני אני מצאתיה ואנא ידענא דכולה שלי אי תנא אני מצאתיה הוה אמינא מאי מצאתיה ראיתיה אע"ג דלא אתאי לידיה בראיה בעלמא קני תנא כולה שלי דבראיה לא קני
means 'thou hast taken hold of it'? — It is admitted that the Scriptural use of the term 'found' implies having taken hold, but the Tanna uses popular language, in which, on seeing something, one might use the term 'found it', [the belief being prevalent] that one acquires [a lost article] by sight alone. For this reason it was necessary to add the plea 'IT IS ALL MINE' and thus to indicate that the mere seeing [of an ownerless object] constitutes no claim to possession. But even so, would it not have been sufficient to state 'IT IS ALL MINE' without the plea of 'I FOUND IT'? — Had [the Mishnah] stated only the plea 'IT IS ALL MINE' I might have said that elsewhere [in the Talmud] the term 'found' is used to mean ['seen', and the conclusion would have been drawn] that mere sight constitutes a claim to possession. For this reason the Mishnah states first 'I FOUND IT' and then 'IT IS ALL MINE' so that we may gather from the additional clause that mere sight does not constitute a claim to possession.
ומי מצית אמרת מאי מצאתיה ראיתיה והא אמר רבנאי (דברים כב, ג) ומצאתה דאתאי לידיה משמע
But how could you say that the two pleas are really one? Is not each plea introduced by the words: ONE OF THEM SAYS and THE OTHER SAYS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would show that they form alternative pleas. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
אין ומצאתה דקרא דאתא לידיה משמע ומיהו תנא לישנא דעלמא נקט ומדחזי ליה אמר אנא אשכחית ואע"ג דלא אתאי לידיה בראיה בעלמא קני תני כולה שלי דבראיה בעלמא לא קני לה
[viz.] ONE OF THEM SAYS 'I FOUND IT', AND THE OTHER SAYS 'I FOUND IT', ONE OF THEM SAYS 'IT IS ALL MINE', etc.? [To this] R. Papa. or R. Shimi b. Ashi, or, as some say, Kadi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This word may also mean 'an unknown authority'. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
וליתני כולה שלי ולא בעי אני מצאתיה אי תני כולה שלי הוה אמינא בעלמא דקתני מצאתיה בראיה בעלמא קני תנא אני מצאתיה והדר תנא כולה שלי דממשנה יתירה אשמעינן דראיה לא קני
replied: The first plea applies to a case of finding, but the second plea applies to a case of buying and selling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not to a case where each one maintains that he has made the garment, for then one of them is bound to be lying. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>