## Bava Metzia Daf 2a

###### Bava Metzia 2a:1
[Bava Metzia 2a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2a:1)

**שְׁנַיִם** אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית, זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ״. זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״. זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ – וְיַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The early commentaries ask why this chapter, which discusses details of the *halakhot* of found items, precedes the second chapter, which discusses the fundamental *halakhot* of found items.
*Tosafot* explain that as tractate *Bava Metzia* follows tractate *Bava Kamma*, the *halakhot* of found items are elucidated in this chapter as a continuation of the topics discussed in the last chapter of *Bava Kamma*, which discussed the division of items between litigants by means of an oath, which is also the ruling in the mishna here (see *Shita Mekubbetzet*). The Rosh explains that because there is a suspicion of theft in this case, these matters are juxtaposed with the *halakhot* of theft, which are described at length in *Bava Kamma*.

**MISHNA:** If **two** people came to court **holding a garment,** and **this** one, the first litigant, **says: I found it, and that** one, the second litigant, **says: I found it; this** one **says: All of it is mine, and that** one **says: All of it is mine;** how does the court adjudicate this case? **This** one **takes an oath that he does not have** ownership of **less than half of it, and that** one **takes an oath that he does not have** ownership of **less than half of it, and they divide** it.


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

זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי״, הָאוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי – יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים, וְהָאוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי – יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעַ. זֶה נוֹטֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **this** one **says: All of it is mine, and that** one **says: Half of it is mine,** since they both agree that half of the cloak belongs to one of them, the conflict between them is only about the other half. Therefore, **the one who says: All of it is mine, takes an oath that he does not have** ownership of **less than three parts,** i.e., three-fourths, **of it, and the one who says: Half of it is mine, takes an oath that he does not have** ownership of **less than one-quarter of it. This** one **takes three parts, and that** one **takes one-quarter.**


###### Bava Metzia 2a:3
[Bava Metzia 2a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2a:3)

הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד רוֹכֵב וְאֶחָד מַנְהִיג, זֶה אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי – זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְיַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **two** people **were sitting** in a riding position **on** the back of **an animal,** e.g., a donkey or camel, **or one was sitting** in a riding position on the animal **and one was leading** it by its halter, and **this** one **says: All of it is mine, and that** one **says: All of it is mine,** how does the court adjudicate this case? **This** one **takes an oath that he does not have** ownership of **less than half of it, and that** one **takes an oath that he does not have** ownership of **less than half of it, and they divide** it.


###### Bava Metzia 2a:4
[Bava Metzia 2a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2a:4)

בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם מוֹדִים אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן עֵדִים – חוֹלְקִין בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When they admit** to the validity of each other’s claims **or when they** each **have witnesses** attesting to their claims, **they divide** the disputed item **without** taking **an oath,** as an oath is administered only in a case where the parties have no other way to prove their claims.


###### Bava Metzia 2a:5
[Bava Metzia 2a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** לְמָה לִי לְמִתְנָא זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ, זֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי? לִיתְנֵי חֲדָא! חֲדָא קָתָנֵי: זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the *tanna* **to teach** two separate claims made by each party? Why does the *tanna* say both: **This** one **says: I found it, and that** one **says: I found it;** and in addition: **This** one **says: All of it is mine, and that** one **says: All of it is mine? Let** the *tanna* **teach one** case. The Gemara answers: The correct understanding of the mishna is that **it teaches one** claim of each party, as their claims were as follows: **This** one **says: I found it and all of it is mine, and that** one **says: I found it and all of it is mine.**


###### Bava Metzia 2a:6
[Bava Metzia 2a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2a:6)

וְלִיתְנֵי ״אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ״, וַאֲנָא יָדַעְנָא דְּכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי! אִי תְּנָא ״אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי ״מְצָאתִיהָ״ – רְאִיתִיהָ. אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ – בִּרְאִיָּה בְּעָלְמָא קָנֵי, תְּנָא: ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ – דְּבִרְאִיָּה לָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let** the *tanna* **teach** a case where each one merely claims: **I found it, and I would know that** the intention of each litigant is to claim: **All of it is mine.** The Gemara answers: **If** the *tanna* **would teach** only that each one claimed: **I found it, I would say** that **what** is the meaning of the claim: I **found it?** It means: I **saw it.** In other words, he is claiming that he saw the item first, and he believes that **even though it did not reach his possession, he acquired** it **through mere sight.** Since it would have been possible to think that this is an effective claim, the *tanna* **teaches** that the litigant states definitively: **All of it is mine,** to teach **that** one **does not acquire** a lost item **through sight** alone.


###### Bava Metzia 2a:7
[Bava Metzia 2a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2a:7)

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ מַאי ״מְצָאתִיהָ״ – רְאִיתִיהָ, וְהָא אָמַר רַבְנַאי ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״ – דַּאֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this explanation: **But how can you say** that **what** the term: I **found it,** means is actually: I **saw it? But didn’t Rabbenai say** in interpreting the verse: “And so shall you do with every lost item of your brother’s, which he has lost, and you have found it” (Deuteronomy 22:3), that **“and you have found it” indicates that it came into his possession?** The term find in the Torah refers exclusively to a situation where the item is in the possession of the finder.


###### Bava Metzia 2a:8
[Bava Metzia 2a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2a:8)

אִין ״וּמְצָאתָהּ״ דִּקְרָא – דַּאֲתָא לִידֵיהּ מַשְׁמַע, וּמִיהוּ תַּנָּא לִישָּׁנָא דְעָלְמָא נָקֵט, וּמִדְּחָזֵי לֵיהּ אָמַר: אֲנָא אַשְׁכַּחִית, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ בִּרְאִיָּה בְּעָלְמָא קָנֵי, תָּנֵי: ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ – דְּבִרְאִיָּה בְּעָלְמָא לָא קָנֵי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Indeed,** the phrase **“and you have found it” in the verse** certainly **indicates that it came into his possession. But** one might say that the ***tanna* employed colloquial language** in the mishna. And in colloquial language, **once** a person **sees** an item, **he says: I found it, even if it did not** yet **come into his possession,** because he believes that **he acquired** the item **through mere sight.** Since it would have been possible to understand the claim of: I found it, in this manner, the *tanna* **teaches** that the litigant states definitively: **All of it is mine,** to teach **that** one **does not acquire** a lost item **through sight** alone.


###### Bava Metzia 2a:9
[Bava Metzia 2a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2a:9)

וְלִיתְנֵי ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ וְלָא בָּעֵי ״אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ״! אִי תָּנֵי ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בְּעָלְמָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״מְצָאתִיהָ״ בִּרְאִיָּה בְּעָלְמָא קָנֵי, תְּנָא ״אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ״ וַהֲדַר תְּנָא ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ דְּמִמִּשְׁנָה יַתִּירָה אַשְׁמְעִינַן דִּרְאִיָּה לָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if that was the objective of the *tanna*, **let him teach** that each party need only state: **All of it is mine, and** the litigant would **not need** to say: **I found it.** The Gemara answers: **If** the *tanna* had **taught** that it is sufficient for each party to claim only: **All of it is mine, I would say** that **in general, when** the *tanna* **teaches** that one claims: I **found it,** he means that the finder **acquires** the item **through mere sight.** Therefore, he **taught** that the litigants claimed: I **found it, and** he **then taught** that the litigants claimed: **All of it is mine,** to teach that only when the litigants each make both of these claims does the court divide the item, **as** from **the superfluous** expression in the **mishna he teaches us that one does not acquire** the item through **sight** alone.


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

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ חֲדָא קָתָנֵי? וְהָא ״זֶה״ וְ״זֶה״ קָתָנֵי: ״זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ, זֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After explaining the viability of this interpretation, the Gemara asks: **But how can you say** that the mishna **is teaching one** claim of each party? **But doesn’t** the mishna **teach: This** one says, **and** again: **This** one says? In other words, the mishna writes: **This** one **says: I found it, and that** one **says: I found it;** and it states additionally: **This** one **says: All of it is mine,** and that one says: All of it is mine. From the fact that the *tanna* introduced each of the claims with the phrase: This one says, it is apparent that they are two separate claims, not one compound claim.


###### Bava Metzia 2a:11
[Bava Metzia 2a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2a:11)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּדִי: רֵישָׁא בִּמְצִיאָה, וְסֵיפָא בְּמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said, and some say** it was said by **Rav Shimi bar Ashi, and some say** it was **an unattributed [*kedi*]** statement: **The first clause,** where each party says: I found it, is referring **to** a case of **a found item,** where two people found one item. **And the latter clause,** where each party says: All of it is mine, is referring **to** a case of **buying and selling,** where each party claims that he is the one who bought the item from its seller.


###### Bava Metzia 2a:12
[Bava Metzia 2a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/2a:12)

וּצְרִיכָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it is **necessary** for the mishna to teach its ruling both with regard to a found item and with regard to a purchase.