Bava Metzia

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?  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.  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]. 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.  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.  It must therefore follow that when one picks up a found object for his neighbour, the neighbour acquires it.  Said Raba: I could still maintain that when one picks up a found object for his neighbour, the neighbour does not acquire it.  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.'  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,  but if partners stole [for each other]  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! Said Raba: Now that it has been proved that we base our decisions on the Since argument.  [it must be assumed that] when a deaf-mute  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,  but how does the normal person acquire it? — I must therefore say: The deaf-mute acquires it; the normal person does not acquire it.  And how does the Since [argument] come in here?  — Since two other deaf-mute persons would acquire [a found object by lifting it up], this [deaf-mute] also acquires it.  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,  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 provision  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?' R. Aha, the son of R. Adda, said to R. Ashi: Whence does Rami b. Hama derive his conclusion?  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!'  — 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,  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,  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]?  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?  It must therefore refer to [a case of] finding.  and this proves that if one lifts up a found object for his neighbour, the neighbour acquires it. And Raba?  — 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. IF TWO RIDE [etc.]. R. Joseph said: Rab Judah told me,