Bava Metzia

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  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.' 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 perutah  for each [of the three]; but if it contains the equivalent of a perutah for each person, he is bound to return it. What is the reason? They may be partners, and therefore do not abandon it.  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. Raba also said: If a man sees a sela' fall, if he takes it before abandonment, intending to appropriate it,  he transgresses all [the following injunctions]: Thou shalt not rob;  thou shalt restore them;  and, thou mayest not hide thyself.  And even if he returns it after abandonment, he merely makes him [the loser] a gift, whilst the offence he has committed stands.  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.  If he waits until the owner despairs thereof and then takes it, he transgresses only, thou mayest not hide thyself. Raba also said: If a man sees his neighbour drop a zuz 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.' MISHNAH. IF A MAN FINDS [AN ARTICLE] IN A SHOP, IT BELONGS TO HIM:  BETWEEN THE COUNTER AND THE SHOPKEEPER ['S SEAT], TO THE SHOPKEEPER.  [IF HE FINDS IT] IN FRONT OF A MONEY-CHANGER, IT BELONGS TO HIM [THE FINDER]; BETWEEN THE STOOL  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. GEMARA. 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.  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.  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. IF ONE BUYS PRODUCE FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR etc. Resh Lakish said on R. Jannai's authority: This refers only