Bava Metzia 1

שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית, זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ, זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְיַחֲלֹקוּ. זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי, הָאוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלשָׁה חֲלָקִים, וְהָאוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי, יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעַ. זֶה נוֹטֵל שְׁלשָׁה חֲלָקִים, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ:

Two are holding a garment. The first says: "I found it"; the second: "I found it." [The Gemara construes the instance in our Mishnah as one where the first was holding the strands on one side of the garment, and the second, the strands on the other side. But if they were holding onto the garment itself, the first takes as far as his hand reaches, and the second, as far as his hand reaches. And the rest, they divide equally with an oath.] The first says: "It is all mine"; the second: "It is all mine." [i.e., I bought it, and the seller sold it to me and not to you. And the seller sold it to one of them and took the money from both of them; one, by consent, and the other, against his will. And he does not know which is which. For if he did know and he said: "I sold it to this one," one witness would obtain, in which instance a Torah oath would be imposed upon the other to refute the witness. Now that he does not know, both swear this oath specified in our Mishnah. By law, they should divide without an oath; but the sages ordained that neither of them takes anything without an oath, so that a man should not go and take hold of his neighbor's garment and say: "It is mine!" And it was necessary for the tanna to apprise us both of "I found it" — (an instance of) finding a lost object, and: "It is all mine" — (an instance of) buying and selling. For if only the first were taught, I would say that it is only in that case that the Torah imposed an oath, one being apt to rationalize to take a lost object unlawfully, viz.: "My friend will lose nothing. I will go and seize it and divide it with him." But, in the instance of buying and selling, where if he did not need it, he would not pursue the seller to buy it, the one who comes to divide with him and give half the price causes him a loss unlawfully, without a rationalization — so that I might say (unless apprised otherwise) that the rabbis did not impose an oath upon him. And if we were apprised only of buying and selling, I would say that it is only in that instance that the rabbis imposed an oath, for in that instance he might say: "My friend gave money and I, too, gave money. Now, that I need it for myself, I will take it, and let my friend go and buy another one." But in the instance of a lost object, where such (a rationalization) does not obtain, I might say not (i.e., that no oath is imposed.) We are, therefore, apprised otherwise.] The first swears that he has in it no less than a half, and the second swears that he has in it no less than a half, and they divide, [He does not swear that it is all his as per his original claim, for they will not give him all of it. And if he swears that half is his, in accordance with what he is given, he vitiates his original claim of "It is all mine." Therefore, he swears that he has in it no less than a half, which implies: It is all mine, as I said in the beginning; and, according to you, who do not believe me for the whole, I take an oath that I have (possession) in it, and that I have in it no less than a half.] If the first says: "It is all mine"; and the second: "Half of it is mine," the one who says "It is all mine" swears that he has no less than three quarters, and the one who says "Half of it is mine" swears that he has no less than one quarter. The first takes three quarters, and the second, one quarter.

הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד רוֹכֵב וְאֶחָד מַנְהִיג, זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְיַחֲלֹקוּ. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם מוֹדִים אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן עֵדִים, חוֹלְקִים בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה:

If both were riding on a beast [We are hereby apprised that riding acquires, even if he (the rider) does not lead, the beast not moving from its place], or if one were riding and the other leading [It is only when the rider moves his feet to make the animal go that the rider is equated with the leader; but if not, the leader acquires, and not the rider.], the first says: "It is all mine," and the second says: "It is all mine," the first swears that he has in it no less than a half, and the second swears that he has in it no less than a half, and they divide. When they concede, or when there are witnesses, they divide without an oath. [If they concede, or if witnesses come, even after it has been ruled that they are to divide with an oath, they divide without an oath.]

הָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה וְרָאָה אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה, וְאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ תְּנֶהָ לִי, נְטָלָהּ וְאָמַר אֲנִי זָכִיתִי בָהּ, זָכָה בָהּ. אִם מִשֶּׁנְּתָנָהּ לוֹ אָמַר אֲנִי זָכִיתִי בָהּ תְּחִלָּה, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם:

If he were riding on a beast and saw a metziah (a lost object), and he said to his friend: "Give it to me" — If he (the friend) took it and said: "I acquired it" (for myself), he acquires it. [But if he the rider) said: "Acquire it for me," the rider acquires it, and the other cannot say: "I acquired it" (for myself)]. If after he gave it to him he said: "I acquired it first," he has said nothing. [For this one (the rider) who withdrew it from his hand, acquired it; and as long as it was in the hand of the one who picked it up, it was hefker (ownerless property)].

רָאָה אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה וְנָפַל עָלֶיהָ, וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ, זֶה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ זָכָה בָהּ. רָאָה אוֹתָן רָצִין אַחַר מְצִיאָה, אַחַר צְבִי שָׁבוּר, אַחַר גּוֹזָלוֹת שֶׁלֹּא פָרְחוּ, וְאָמַר זָכְתָה לִי שָׂדִי, זָכְתָה לוֹ. הָיָה צְבִי רָץ כְּדַרְכּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ גוֹזָלוֹת מַפְרִיחִין, וְאָמַר זָכְתָה לִי שָׂדִי, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם:

If he saw a metziah and fell upon it and another came and took hold of it, the latter acquires it. [This is so only when the metziah was in the public domain, for a man's four cubits do not acquire for him in the public domain. Therefore, the one who takes hold of it acquires it. But in an alleyway, which is a path for one person, or at the sides of the public domain, where there is no press of people, one's four cubits acquire for him any metziah and object of hefker close to him in that space, and no one else is permitted to seize it — a rabbinical ordinance to prevent contention.] If he saw them (men) running after a metziah, after a "broken" deer, [which cannot run and is "guarded" in the field if others do not take it, and which is like a metziah], and after birds which cannot fly, and he said: "My field has acquired (them) for me," it acquires (them) for him. [This, provided that he is standing at the side of his field and can run after them and reach them before they leave the field.] If a deer were running normally or birds flying, and he said: "My field has acquired (them) for me," he has said nothing.

מְצִיאַת בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים, מְצִיאַת עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים, מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. מְצִיאַת בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים, מְצִיאַת עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים, מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁגֵּרְשָׁהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלָּהֶן:

The metziah of one's minor son and daughter (belong to him) [Whoever is dependent upon his father's "table," even if he is an adult is considered a minor, and his metziah belongs to his father to prevent eivah ("hatred"). And the metziah of a daughter, whether a minor or a na'arah (a maiden), belongs to her father, the Torah having accorded all the gains of her maidenhood to her father.], the metziah of his Canaanite bondsman and bondswoman (belong to him), [their bodies belonging to him, viz. (Leviticus 25:46): "And you shall hold them as an inheritance."], and the metziah of his wife belongs to him [(a rabbinical ordinance to prevent eivah)]. The metziah of his Hebrew bondsman and bondswoman, the metziah of his divorcée, though he has not given her her kethubah, belongs to them.

מָצָא שְׁטָרֵי חוֹב, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת נְכָסִים, לֹא יַחֲזִיר, שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן, אֵין בָּהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת נְכָסִים, יַחֲזִיר, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ לֹא יַחֲזִיר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן:

If one found bills of indebtedness, if they contain a lien on land [in insurance of payment of the debt], he does not return them (to the creditor), for beth-din exact payment from them (sold properties). [We fear "payment and plotting," i.e., it may be that it is a paid bill which fell from the lender and that his admitting: "I did not pay" is part of a plot between him and the creditor to extract payment from the sold properties which were bought from the debtor without security (against seizure), those properties to be divided between them.] If they do not contain a lien on land, he returns it (to the creditor), for (in that instance) beth-din do not exact payment from them. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: In both instances he does not return it, for beth-din exact payment from them. [They exact payment even where the bill does not contain a lien on land, for this (omission of the lien) is an error of the scribe, and we fear "payment and plotting." The halachah is in accordance with the sages, And it is only in a bill where a lien is not mentioned that the sages consider it an error of the scribe and collection is made from the bound property as if the lien were written therein. But if he stated explicitly in the bill that he does not take such a lien upon himself, the sages concede that he returns it (to the creditor), for in such an instance there is no apprehension of plotting.]

מָצָא גִטֵּי נָשִׁים, וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, דְּיָתֵיקֵי, מַתָּנָה וְשׁוֹבְרִים, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחֲזִיר, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר כְּתוּבִים הָיוּ וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא לִתְּנָם:

If one found gittin (writs of divorce) of women, writs of manumission, d'yatiki [death-bed wills, (acronymic for) "da tehei lemeikam velihyoth" ("This stands to be fulfilled and to be.")], bequests, or receipts [of creditor to debtor testifying to payment of debt], he does not return them. For I say (i.e., I suspect) that they were written and he (the writer) decided against giving them.

מָצָא אִגְּרוֹת שׁוּם וְאִגְּרוֹת מָזוֹן, שְׁטָרֵי חֲלִיצָה וּמֵאוּנִין, וּשְׁטָרֵי בֵרוּרִין, וְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵית דִּין, הֲרֵי זֶה יַחֲזִיר. מָצָא בַחֲפִיסָה אוֹ בִדְלֻסְקְמָא, תַּכְרִיךְ שֶׁל שְׁטָרוֹת, אוֹ אֲגֻדָּה שֶׁל שְׁטָרוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה יַחֲזִיר. וְכַמָּה אֲגֻדָּה שֶׁל שְׁטָרוֹת, שְׁלשָׁה קְשׁוּרִין זֶה בָזֶה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד הַלֹּוֶה מִשְּׁלשָׁה, יַחֲזִיר לַלֹּוֶה, שְׁלשָׁה הַלֹּוִין מֵאֶחָד, יַחֲזִיר לַמַּלְוֶה. מָצָא שְׁטָר בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹתָיו וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מַה טִּיבוֹ, יְהֵא מֻנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶן סִמְפּוֹנוֹת, יַעֲשֶׂה מַה שֶּׁבַּסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת:

If one found writs of assessment, [beth-din having assessed the property of the debtor for the creditor towards payment of the debt], writs of sustenance, [wherein the husband takes it upon himself to feed his wife's daughter. Another interpretation: (writs wherein it is stated that land of the husband is to be sold to feed his wife and daughters], writs of refusal, [wherein it is written: "Before us this and this woman refused (to remain married to) this and this man," this, in an instance of an (orphaned) minor whose mother and brothers married her off, in which instance she does not require a get], writs of selection, [one (litigant) choosing one (judge) and the other choosing one, to judge their case], and (any writ of) enactment by beth-din, he returns them (to the ones for whom they were written). If he found (bills) in a chafisah [a small leather bag], or in a dluskema [a leather bag where the elderly keep their necessaries so as not to have to search for them], or a pack of bills [three or more, folded together], or a bundle of bills [lying one atop the other, length to length], he returns them, [this being a thing that has a siman (an identifying sign). For the receptacle is a siman, the owner saying: "In such and such a receptacle did I place them." Likewise, "pack" and "bundle" are a siman.] And how many are a "bundle" of bills? Three tied together. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: If one borrowed from three, they are returned to the debtor. [If the three bills are of one debtor, who borrowed from three different men, the finder returns them to the debtor, the bills definitely having fallen from him. For if they had fallen from them (the creditors), who would have gathered them together in one place? And this, only with bills that have been certified in beth-din. But with bills that have not been certified, we fear that the three creditors might have taken them to the scribe of beth-din to have them certified and they fell from the hand of the scribe. But it is not to be feared that they fell from the scribe's hand after he certified them, for men do not leave certified bills in the hand of the scribe.] If three borrowed from one, he returns it to the creditor, [it being obvious that they fell from him. And if they were all written by the hand of one scribe, we fear that they might have fallen from the hand of the scribe and that the loan had never been made, so that they are not returned.] If he found a bill among his bills, and he does not know the nature of it [i.e., whether the debtor deposited it with him or the creditor, or whether it is partially paid and it was given to him to act as an intermediary], it remains [in his hand without being returned to either] until Eliyahu arrives. If he finds among them (his bills) a receipt [written for one of his bills], he does what is (stated) in the receipt, [and the bill is assumed to have been paid. And even though this receipt should have been in the hand of the debtor and not in that of the creditor, we assume that the debtor trusted the creditor and said: "Give it to me tomorrow," and he forgot. (This, when the creditor found the bill for which the receipt was written among torn-up bills, though it itself is not torn up)].