## Bava Metzia Daf 10a

###### Bava Metzia 10a:1
[Bava Metzia 10a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:1)

מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי – רַבָּנַן הִיא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּעָשִׁיר וְעָנִי מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל מֵעָנִי לְעָנִי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל זָכָה לוֹ, הָא מַנִּי? לָא רַבָּנַן וְלָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna? It is** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who hold that one cannot acquire an item for another in this manner. **But if you say** that the **dispute** is specifically **in** a case of **a rich person and a poor person but** in a case where the *pe’a* was gleaned **by a poor person on behalf of a poor person everyone agrees** that **he acquired** it **on** the latter’s **behalf,** in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? It is **neither** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis nor** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Bava Metzia 10a:2
[Bava Metzia 10a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, מַתְנִיתִין דְּאָמַר תְּחִילָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ulla **said to** Rav Naḥman: **The mishna** is referring to a case **where** the one lifting the item **said:** I intended to acquire the item for myself **at the outset;** I never had intention to acquire it on behalf of the rider.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:3
[Bava Metzia 10a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:3)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם מִשֶּׁנְּתָנָהּ לוֹ אָמַר אֲנִי זָכִיתִי בָּהּ תְּחִילָּה – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. תְּחִילָּה בְּסֵיפָא לְמָה לִי? פְּשִׁיטָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָמַר תְּחִילָּה, תְּחִילָּה קָאָמַר. אֶלָּא לָאו הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, רֵישָׁא דְּאָמַר ״תְּחִילָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **So too, it is reasonable** to explain the mishna in this manner, **as it teaches in the last clause:** But **if, after giving it to** the one riding the animal **he said: I acquired it** for myself **at the outset, he has said nothing** and the rider keeps the item. **Why do I need** the phrase: **At the outset,** to be mentioned **in the last clause? It is obvious** that **even if he did not** explicitly **say: At the outset, he meant** that he acquired it **at the outset,** before he gave it to the rider. **Rather, isn’t** this phrase mentioned to **teach us this: The first clause** of the mishna is also referring a case **where he said:** I intended to acquire it for myself **at the outset?**


###### Bava Metzia 10a:4
[Bava Metzia 10a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:4)

וְאִידַּךְ: תְּנָא סֵיפָא לְגַלּוֹיֵי רֵישָׁא. סֵיפָא, דְּאָמַר תְּחִילָּה. רֵישָׁא, דְּלָא אָמַר תְּחִילָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other** Sage, Rav Naḥman, is of the opinion that the mishna **taught** this phrase in **the last clause** of the mishna in order **to shed light on the first clause. The last clause** is referring to a case **where he said** that he acquired the item **at the outset** in order to indicate that in **the first clause,** the one who lifts the item acquires it even in a case **where he did not say** that he acquired it for himself **at the outset.** In Rav Naḥman’s opinion, the rider does not acquire the item until it is given to him.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:5
[Bava Metzia 10a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:5)

רַב נַחְמָן וְרַב חִסְדָּא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ מְצִיאָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – לֹא קָנָה חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses the opinion of **Rav Naḥman and Rav Ḥisda, who both say:** In a case of **one who** performs an act of acquisition by **lifting a found item on behalf of another, the other** person, i.e., the latter, **does not acquire** ownership of the item.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:6
[Bava Metzia 10a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:6)

מַאי טַעְמָא – הָוֵי תּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחָב לַאֲחֵרִים, וְהַתּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחָב לַאֲחֵרִים – לֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** for this? The reason is that **it is** a case of **one who seizes** assets **for a creditor in a situation that** will result in **a disadvantage for others,** as the debtor owes money to other creditors as well; **and one who seizes** assets **for a creditor in a situation that** will result in **a disadvantage for others does not acquire** the assets for him. Although a creditor can himself seize the assets as payment for the debt, no one else can take action that will benefit one person at the expense of others. Similarly, since everyone has equal rights to an ownerless item that is found, one person cannot deprive all others of that right on behalf of another person.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:7
[Bava Metzia 10a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:7)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מְצִיאַת פּוֹעֵל לְעַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection to** the opinion of **Rav Naḥman** from a *baraita*: **The found item of a laborer,** i.e., something that he found, belongs **to him** and not to the employer for whom he is working at that time.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:8
[Bava Metzia 10a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:8)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת ״נַכֵּשׁ עִמִּי הַיּוֹם״, ״עֲדוֹר עִמִּי הַיּוֹם״. אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ ״עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי מְלָאכָה הַיּוֹם״ – מְצִיאָתוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In what** case **is this statement,** that the item belongs to the laborer, **said?** It is said **when the employer** told the laborer to perform a specific task, e.g., he **said to him: Weed for me today,** or: **Till for me today.** Since the employer specified the task that he hired the laborer to perform, the laborer has rights to the item that the laborer found. **But** if the employer **said to** the laborer: **Work for me today,** without specifying the nature of the work, the **found item is the employer’s,** as finding ownerless items is included within the general category of work. This indicates that a laborer can acquire an item for someone else, which contradicts Rav Naḥman’s principle.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:9
[Bava Metzia 10a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁאנֵי פּוֹעֵל, דְּיָדוֹ כְּיַד בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to him: A laborer is different, as his hand is like the hand of the employer.** He is considered his agent while he is working for him.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:10
[Bava Metzia 10a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:10)

וְהָאָמַר רַב: פּוֹעֵל יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ אֲפִילּוּ בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava responded: **But doesn’t Rav say** that **a laborer may reconsider** and quit his job, **even at midday?** Evidently, the relationship between the employer and the laborer is structured to the benefit of the laborer.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:11
[Bava Metzia 10a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל כַּמָּה דְּלָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ, כְּיַד בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הוּא. כִּי הֲדַר בֵּיהּ, טַעְמָא אַחֲרִינָא הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לִי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים, עֲבָדַי הֵם״ – וְלֹא עֲבָדִים לַעֲבָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to him: As long as he does not retract** his commitment, his hand **is like the employer’s hand. When** he does **retract** his commitment, he **is** able to do so. But this is not because matters are structured to the benefit of the laborer, but for **a different reason, as it is written: “For to Me the children of Israel are slaves;** they are My slaves whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 25:55), which indicates: **They are My slaves, and not slaves of slaves,** i.e., of other Jews. Consequently, a Jew can never be enslaved to another Jew with a contract from which he cannot release himself whenever he wishes. Nevertheless, as long as the laborer does not quit the job, he is considered his employer’s agent.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:12
[Bava Metzia 10a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ מְצִיאָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – קָנָה חֲבֵירוֹ. וְאִם תֹּאמַר מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ, דְּאָמַר ״תְּנָהּ לִי״, וְלָא אָמַר ״זְכָהּ לִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Contrary to the opinion of Rav Naḥman and Rav Ḥisda, **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** In a case of **one who** performs an act of acquisition by **lifting a found item on behalf of another, the other** person **acquires** ownership of the item. **And if you say** that **our mishna** seems to suggest otherwise, it is referring to a case **where** the rider **says** to the pedestrian: **Give** it **to me, but does not say: Acquire** it **for me.** If he says give it to me, the rider acquires the item only when it reaches his possession. If he says acquire it for me, the rider acquires the item as soon as the pedestrian lifts it.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:13
[Bava Metzia 10a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** רָאָה אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה וְנָפַל עָלֶיהָ, וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ – זֶה שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ זָכָה בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one **saw a found item and fell upon it,** intending to thereby acquire it, but did not employ one of the formal modes of acquisition, **and** then **another came and seized it, the one who seized it acquired it** because he employed one of the formal modes of acquisition.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:14
[Bava Metzia 10a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם אַבָּא כֹּהֵן בַּרְדְּלָא: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנוֹת לוֹ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם. [מַאי טַעְמָא] תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן, דְּלָא (אָתֵי) [לֵיתוֹ] לְאִנְּצוֹיֵי. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מוֹתֵיב רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף פֵּיאָה. אָמַר רָבָא: מוֹתֵיב רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי נְזִיקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Reish Lakish says in the name of Abba Kohen Bardela:** The area of **four** square **cubits** surrounding **a person** has the legal status of his courtyard, and it **effects acquisition** of every ownerless item located there **for him, everywhere. What is the reason** for this? **The Sages instituted** this ordinance **so that** people **would not come to quarrel** over an item. **Abaye said** that **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef raises an objection** to this from a mishna in tractate ***Pe’a*. Rava said** that **Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi raises an objection** to this from a mishna in ***Nezikin*.**


###### Bava Metzia 10a:15
[Bava Metzia 10a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:15)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, מוֹתֵיב רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף פֵּיאָה: נָטַל מִקְצָת פֵּיאָה וְזָרַק עַל הַשְּׁאָר – אֵין לוֹ בָּהּ כְּלוּם. נָפַל לוֹ עָלֶיהָ, פֵּרַס טַלִּיתוֹ עָלֶיהָ – מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ הֵימֶנָּה. וְכֵן בְּעוֹמֶר שִׁכְחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Abaye said** that **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef raises an objection** to this from a mishna in tractate ***Pe’a*** (4:3), which states: If a poor person **took some of the *pe’a*** in the field **and threw it on the rest** of the *pe’a* in order to acquire it, **he has nothing of it.** The same is true if **he fell upon** the *pe’a*, or if **he spread his garment over it;** others may **remove him** or his garment **from** the *pe’a* in order to take it for themselves, as he did not acquire it. **And the same** is true **in** the case of **a forgotten sheaf** left for the poor; a poor person cannot acquire it in any of these manners.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:16
[Bava Metzia 10a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:16)

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנוֹת לוֹ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, נִקְנוֹ לֵיהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דִּידֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef continues: **And if you say** that **a person’s** area of **four** square **cubits effects acquisition** of property **for him everywhere, let his** area of **four** square **cubits effect acquisition** of the *pe’a* or the forgotten sheaf **for him.**


###### Bava Metzia 10a:17
[Bava Metzia 10a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:17)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּלָא אֲמַר ״אֶקְנֵי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where he did not say: I will acquire** the *pe’a* through this action. He performed the action without revealing his intention; therefore, his acquisition is ineffective.


###### Bava Metzia 10a:18
[Bava Metzia 10a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:18)

וְאִי תַּקּוּן רַבָּנַן, כִּי לָא אֲמַר מַאי הָוֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But if the Sages instituted** an ordinance that the area of four cubits surrounding a person acquires property for him, then even in a case **where he did not say:** I will acquire the produce, **what of it?** Shouldn’t he have acquired it even without expressing his intent to do so?


###### Bava Metzia 10a:19
[Bava Metzia 10a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/10a:19)

כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַל, גַּלִּי דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבִנְפִילָה נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּנִקְנֵי, בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּנִקְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This case is different. **Since he fell** upon it **he** thereby **revealed his intention: That it is satisfactory for him to acquire** the produce **by falling** on it and **it is not satisfactory for him to acquire** the produce **through** the ordinance concerning his **four** square **cubits.** Since he decided to forgo the mode of acquisition that the Sages instituted, and falling on the produce is not a valid mode of acquisition, he did not acquire the produce.