Bava Metzia 52

שנפל משנים חייב להחזיר מאי טעמא ההוא דנפל מיניה לא מיאש מימר אמר מכדי איניש אחרינא לא הוה בהדאי אלא האי נקיטנא ליה ואמינא ליה אנת הוא דשקלתיה

fall from one of two people [who are together], he must return it. What is the reason? He who dropped it does not despair thereof, for he argues: 'Let us see, no other person but this one was with me; then I will seize him and say to him, You did take it.' But in the case of three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it was dropped by one of three persons. ');">¹</span>

בשלשה אינו חייב להחזיר מאי טעמא ההוא דנפל מיניה ודאי מיאש מימר אמר מכדי תרי הוו בהדאי אי נקיטנא להאי אמר לא שקלתיה ואי נקיטנא להאי אמר לא שקלתיה

he need not return it. What is the reason? — Because he who dropped it certainly abandons it, arguing to himself, 'Let us see: there were two with me; if I accuse the one he will deny it, and if I accuse the other, he will deny it.'

אמר רבא האי דאמרת בשלשה אינו חייב להחזיר לא אמרן אלא דלית ביה שוה פרוטה לכל חד וחד אבל אית ביה שוה פרוטה לכל חד וחד חייב להחזיר מאי טעמא אימור שותפי נינהו ולא מיאשו

Raba said: As for your ruling that in the case of three he need not return it, that holds good only if it [the coin lost] lacks the value of a <i>perutah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Mishnah, infra 55a. ');">²</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רבא אע"ג דלית ביה אלא שוה שתי פרוטות חייב להחזיר מאי טעמא אימור שותפי נינהו וחד מנייהו אחולי אחליה למנתיה גבי חבריה

for each [of the three]; but if it contains the equivalent of a <i>perutah</i> for each person, he is bound to return it. What is the reason? They may be partners, and therefore do not abandon it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When one discovers the coin gone, he thinks that his partner may have taken it as a practical joke. The stranger therefore picks it up before abandonment, and so must return it. ');">³</span>

ואמר רבא ראה סלע שנפלה נטלה לפני יאוש על מנת לגוזלה עובר בכולן משום (ויקרא יט, יג) לא תגזול ומשום (דברים כב, א) השב תשיבם ומשום (דברים כב, ג) לא תוכל להתעלם ואע"ג דחזרה לאחר יאוש מתנה הוא דיהיב ליה ואיסורא דעבד עבד

Others state. Raba said: Even if it is worth only two perutahs, he must return it. What is the reason? They may have been partners, and one renounced his portion in the owner's favour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the two perutahs belong to two, i.e., a perutah for each, so that the article comes within the ambit of theft, if taken before abandonment. ');">⁴</span>

נטלה לפני יאוש על מנת להחזירה ולאחר יאוש נתכוין לגוזלה עובר משום השב תשיבם

Raba also said: If a man sees a <i>sela'</i> fall, if he takes it before abandonment, intending to appropriate it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is regarded as theft if he picks it up then with the intention of keeping it. ');">⁵</span>

המתין לה עד שנתיאשו הבעלים ונטלה אינו עובר אלא משום לא תוכל להתעלם בלבד

he transgresses all [the following injunctions]: Thou shalt not rob;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 13. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבא האי מאן דחזי דנפל זוזי מחבריה בי חלתא ואשכחיה ושקליה לא מיחייב לאהדורי ליה מאי טעמא ההוא דנפל מיניה מיאש הוא אע"ג דחזייה דאייתי ארבלא וקא מרבל מימר אמר כי היכי דנפול מינאי דידי הכי נפול מאיניש אחרינא ומשכחנא מידי:

thou shalt restore them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 1. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מצא בחנות הרי אלו שלו בין התיבה ולחנוני של חנוני לפני שולחני הרי אלו שלו בין הכסא ולשולחני הרי אלו של שולחני

and, thou mayest not hide thyself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 3-sc. from taking up and returning a lost article. ');">⁸</span>

הלוקח פירות מחבירו או ששילח לו חבירו פירות ומצא בהן מעות הרי אלו שלו אם היו צרורין נוטל ומכריז:

And even if he returns it after abandonment, he merely makes him [the loser] a gift, whilst the offence he has committed stands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he has committed it.' ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבי אלעזר אפילו מונחין על גבי שולחן

If he picks it up before abandonment, intending to return it, but after abandonment decides to appropriate it, he violates [the injunction,] thou shalt restore them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because 'thou shalt not rob' is applicable only when the action itself is committed with that intention. [Nor is the injunction. 'thou mayest not hide thyself' applicable where the desire to appropriate it came to him after abandonment; v. Rashi and Tosaf.] ');">¹⁰</span>

תנן לפני שולחני הרי אלו שלו הא על גבי שולחן דשולחני אימא סיפא בין הכסא ולשולחני של שולחני הא על גבי שולחן שלו אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה

If he waits until the owner despairs thereof and then takes it, he transgresses only, thou mayest not hide thyself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he takes it after abandonment, he is not guilty of robbery, nor must he return it. But by waiting until then, he 'hid himself,' i.e., refrained from taking the find at the proper time. ');">¹¹</span>

ורבי אלעזר הא מנא ליה אמר רבא מתניתין קשיתיה מאי אריא דתני בין הכסא לשולחני של שולחני ליתני על שולחן אי נמי מצא בשולחנות כדקתני רישא מצא בחנות שלו אלא ש"מ אפי' מונחין על גבי שולחן הרי אלו שלו:

Raba also said: If a man sees his neighbour drop a <i>zuz</i> in sand, and then finds and takes it, he is not bound to return it. Why? He from whom it fell abandons it, and even if he is seen to bring a sieve and sift [the sand], he may merely be reasoning. 'Just as I dropped something, so may another have lost an article, and I will find it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But he has no hopes of finding his own, which he has already abandoned. Therefore the finder need not return it. ');">¹²</span>

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