## Bava Metzia Daf 8a

###### Bava Metzia 8a:1
[Bava Metzia 8a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:1)

דְּחַזְיָא לִקְטַנִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is because each party receives an item that has monetary value, **as it is fit** to be made into a garment **for small** children.


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

וְהָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אִם הָיְתָה טַלִּית מוּזְהֶבֶת – חוֹלְקִין, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּפָלְגִי לַהּ, הָא אַפְסְדוּהָ! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, דְּחַזְיָא לִבְנֵי מְלָכִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** as for that **which Rava said,** that **if** the **garment was** fashioned **with gold** thread **they divide** it, does that **also** mean **that they divide** the garment itself? By doing so they would **ruin it.** The Gemara answers: **That** is **not difficult, as** after the garment is divided **it is fit** to be made into a garment **for the children of kings** or wealthy people. Therefore, it is not ruined.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:3
[Bava Metzia 8a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:3)

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה וְכוּ׳, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּפָלְגִי לַהּ? הָא אַפְסְדוּהָ! בִּשְׁלָמָא טְהוֹרָה – חַזְיָא לְבָשָׂר. אֶלָּא טְמֵאָה, הָא אַפְסְדוּהָ! אֶלָּא לִדְמֵי, הָכָא נָמֵי לִדְמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** with regard to **that which we learned** in the mishna (2a): If **two** people **were sitting on an animal** and each of them claims to own the entire animal, they each take an oath and divide the animal, does that **also** mean **that they divide** the animal itself? By doing so they would **ruin it. Granted,** if it is **a kosher** animal it is **fit** to be slaughtered and divided between them **for** the **meat. But** if it is **a non-kosher** animal, slaughtering it and dividing the carcass would **ruin it** and render it worthless. **Rather,** clearly they divide its **monetary** value. **Here too,** in the other cases where the ruling is to divide the item, it means that the litigants divide its **monetary** value and not the item itself.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:4
[Bava Metzia 8a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:4)

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ מְצִיאָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – קָנָה חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Based on an inference from the mishna on 2a, **Rami bar Ḥama says: That is to 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, **acquires** ownership of the item.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:5
[Bava Metzia 8a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:5)

דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לֹא קָנָה חֲבֵירוֹ, תֵּיעָשֶׂה זוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁמּוּנַּחַת עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, וְזוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁמּוּנַּחַת עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, וְלֹא יִקְנֶה לֹא זֶה וְלֹא זֶה. אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ מְצִיאָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – קָנָה חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami bar Ḥama explains his inference: **As, if it enters your mind** that if one lifts a found item for another **the other does not acquire** the item, this garment has not been acquired by either of the two litigants, as each prevents the other’s acquisition. If that were the case, **this** part of the garment, held by one of them, **would be considered as though** it is still **lying on the ground, and that** part of the garment, held by the other one, would be considered **as though** it is still **lying on the ground, and neither this** one **nor that** one **acquires** it; if a third party takes it, it is his. **Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** it that in a case of **one who** performs an act of acquisition by **lifting a found item on behalf of another, the other** person **acquires** the item?


###### Bava Metzia 8a:6
[Bava Metzia 8a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:6)

אָמַר רָבָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ מְצִיאָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – לֹא קָנָה חֲבֵירוֹ. וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: מִגּוֹ דְּזָכֵי לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ זָכֵי נָמֵי לְחַבְרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** This is not a proof, as **actually I** could **say to you** that in a case of **one who** performs an act of acquisition by **lifting a found item** solely **on behalf of another, the other** person **does not acquire** the item. **And here** in the mishna, **this is the reason** the two litigants acquire the garment: **Since** each of the litigants **acquires** part of the garment **for himself, he also acquires** the other part **for the other** one.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:7
[Bava Metzia 8a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:7)

תִּדַּע שֶׁאִילּוּ אָמַר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ: ״צֵא וּגְנוֹב לִי״, וְגָנַב – פָּטוּר. וְשׁוּתָּפִין שֶׁגָּנְבוּ – חַיָּיבִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן: מִגּוֹ דְּזָכֵי לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ זָכֵי נָמֵי לְחַבְרֵיהּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava adds: **Know** that one who acquires an item for himself can acquire part of it for another, **as, if** someone **says to his agent: Go out and steal** an item **for me, and** the agent **stole** that item, the one who sent him is **exempt** from liability, due to the principle that there is no agency for sin; **but partners who stole** an item together are both **liable** even if only one of them actually lifted the item. **What is the reason** that they are both liable? Is it **not because we say** that **since** the one **who** lifted the item **acquires** part of it **for himself, he also acquires** the other part **for the other** one, his partner? The Gemara concludes: **Learn from it** that this principle is correct.


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

אָמַר רָבָא, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ אָמְרִינַן מִגּוֹ: חֵרֵשׁ וּפִקֵּחַ שֶׁהִגְבִּיהוּ מְצִיאָה, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁקָּנָה חֵרֵשׁ – קָנָה פִּקֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** in continuation of his statement: **Now that you said** that **we say: Since [*miggo*]** one acquires part of an item for himself he can also acquire the other part for another, another *halakha* can be derived: In a case of **a deaf-mute and** a mentally **competent** person **who lifted a found item** simultaneously, **since** the **deaf-mute acquires** his part of the item, the mentally **competent** person also **acquires** his portion.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:9
[Bava Metzia 8a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:9)

בִּשְׁלָמָא חֵרֵשׁ קָנָה – דְּקָא מַגְבַּהּ לֵיהּ בֶּן דַּעַת. אֶלָּא פִּקֵּחַ בְּמַאי קָנָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** the **deaf-mute acquires** his portion of the found item, **as** a **mentally competent** person **lifted it for him;** since the mentally competent person acquired his own part, he also acquired the other part for the deaf-mute. **But how does** the **mentally competent** person **acquire** his part? He needs the deaf-mute to acquire it for him, and a deaf-mute cannot acquire an item for another.


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

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: חֵרֵשׁ – קָנָה, פִּקֵּחַ – לָא קָנָה. וּמַאי מִגּוֹ? מִגּוֹ דִּשְׁנֵי חֵרְשִׁין בְּעָלְמָא קָנוּ, הַאי נָמֵי קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, say** Rava’s statement differently: The **deaf-mute acquires** his part, but the mentally **competent** person **does not acquire** his part. **And what** is the principle of ***miggo*** from which Rava derives this *halakha*? It is not the principle that one who acquires a found item for himself can acquire part of it for another as well, but rather: **Since [*miggo*] in general two deaf-mutes** who pick up an item simultaneously **acquire** it, in **this** case **too,** the deaf-mute **acquires** it, even though the mentally competent person does not acquire it.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:11
[Bava Metzia 8a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:11)

הַאי מַאי? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ מְצִיאָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ קָנָה חֲבֵירוֹ, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקָא מַגְבַּהּ לֵיהּ אַדַּעְתָּא דְּחַבְרֵיהּ. הַאי אַדַּעְתָּא דִּידֵיהּ קָא מַגְבַּהּ לֵיהּ, אִיהוּ לָא קָנֵי – לְאַחֲרִינֵי מַקְנֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is **this** derivation? Even **if you say** that in a case of **one who** performs an act of acquisition by **lifting a found item on behalf of another, the other** person **acquires** it, as Rami bar Ḥama says, **this statement** applies only **where he lifts it with the intention of** having **the other person** acquire the item. But in **this** case, the mentally competent person **lifted** the item **with the intention of** acquiring it for **himself;** he had no intention of acquiring it for the deaf-mute. If **he does not acquire** the item for himself, **does he acquire** it **for others?**


###### Bava Metzia 8a:12
[Bava Metzia 8a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:12)

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא קָנָה פִּקֵּחַ – לֹא קָנָה חֵרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, say** that **since** the mentally **competent** person **does not acquire** any part of the found item, the **deaf-mute does not acquire** it either.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:13
[Bava Metzia 8a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:13)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, מַאי שְׁנָא מִשְּׁנֵי חֵרְשִׁין דְּעָלְמָא – הָתָם תַּקִּינוּ לְהוּ רַבָּנַן דְּלָא אָתֵי לְאִנְּצוֹיֵי. הָכָא מֵימָר אָמַר: פִּקֵּחַ לָא קָנֵי, אֲנָא אֶקְנֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say:** In **what** way **is** this case **different from** the **general** case of an item that was found by **two deaf-mutes,** in which they both acquire it? The answer is that **there,** in that case, **the Sages instituted** an ordinance **for them** that they both acquire the item **so that they will not come to quarrel** with others who want to take the item from them due to the fact that a deaf-mute lacks the halakhic ability to acquire the item. **Here,** in the case of the deaf-mute and the mentally competent person, the deaf-mute **says** to himself: If even the mentally **competent** person **does not acquire** the item, **can I acquire** it? Therefore, in that case, he will not quarrel if others take the item from him.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:14
[Bava Metzia 8a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: דִּיּוּקֵיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵהֵיכָא? אִי נֵימָא מֵרֵישָׁא ״שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית״, הָתָם הַאי קָאָמַר ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וַאֲנָא אַגְּבַּהְתַּהּ כּוּלַּהּ״, וְהַאי אָמַר ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וַאֲנָא אַגְּבַּהְתַּהּ כּוּלַּהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Adda, said to Rav Ashi: From where** in the mishna **is Rami bar Ḥama’s inference** drawn? **If we say** that he infers it **from the first clause** of the mishna, i.e., the case of **two** people **holding a garment,** isn’t the case **there** one in which **this** one **says: All of it is mine, and I lifted the entire** garment; **and that** one **says: All of it is mine, and I lifted the entire** garment? How can the *halakha* where one acquires an item for another be inferred from that case?


###### Bava Metzia 8a:15
[Bava Metzia 8a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:15)

אֶלָּא מֵהָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״זֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״ הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא מִמִּשְׁנָה יְתֵירָה שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ מְצִיאָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – קָנָה חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** he infers it **from that which is taught** later in the mishna: **This** one **says all of it is mine and that** one **says all of it is mine. Why do I** need **this** case **as well?** The first case, where each one says: I found it, is sufficient. **Rather, learn from** the **superfluous** case in the **mishna** that even if they lifted it simultaneously, they divide it and a third party has no right to take it, as in a case of **one who** performs an act of acquisition by **lifting a found item on behalf of another, the other** person **acquires** the item.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:16
[Bava Metzia 8a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:16)

וְהָא אוֹקֵימְנָא רֵישָׁא בִּמְצִיאָה, וְסֵיפָא בְּמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** that clause in the mishna is not superfluous; **didn’t we** already **establish** (2a) that **the first clause** is referring **to** a dispute over **a found item, and the latter clause** 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 8a:17
[Bava Metzia 8a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:17)

אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא: ״זֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי״, הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא מִמִּשְׁנָה יְתֵירָה שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ מְצִיאָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – קָנָה חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rami bar Ḥama infers his ruling **from the latter clause** of the mishna, i.e., the case where **this** one **says all of it is mine and that** one **says half of it is mine. Why do I** need **this** case **as well?** What does it add to the previous cases? **Rather, learn from** this **superfluous** case in the **mishna** that in a case of **one who** performs an act of acquisition by **lifting a found item on behalf of another, the other** person **acquires** the item.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:18
[Bava Metzia 8a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:18)

וּמִמַּאי דְּבִמְצִיאָה? דִּלְמָא בְּמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where** is it inferred **that** this clause is referring **to** the case of **a found item? Perhaps** it is referring **to** a case of **buying and selling.**


###### Bava Metzia 8a:19
[Bava Metzia 8a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:19)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: אִי בְּמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הַאי דְּקָאָמַר ״חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי״ לֶהֱוֵי כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה וְלִיפְּטַר. קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּהַאי אִיעָרוֹמֵי קָא מַעֲרִים. סָבַר: אִי אָמֵינָא ״כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי״, בָּעֵינָא אִשְׁתְּבוֹעֵי, אֵימָא הָכִי, דְּאֶהְוֵי כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה וְאִיפְּטַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: If** it were referring **to** a case of **buying and selling, what** would be the purpose **of stating** it, as it adds no novel ruling? One could answer that it **was necessary** to teach this additional case, as otherwise it might **enter your mind to say** that **the one who says: Half of it is mine, should be considered the equivalent of one returning a lost item;** he could have claimed that the garment was entirely his, and instead he conceded half of it to the other party **and** consequently **he should be exempt** from taking an oath. To counter this, the mishna **teaches us that** he is not exempt, as perhaps **this** person **is employing artifice.** Perhaps he is **thinking: If I say** that **all of it is mine I will need to take an oath. I will state this** claim, that half of it is mine, **as I will** thereby **be considered the equivalent of one returning a lost item, and I will be exempt** from taking an oath. Therefore, this clause is not superfluous; it teaches that this litigant is not considered the equivalent of one returning a lost item.


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

אֶלָּא מֵהָא, הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה, הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא מִמִּשְׁנָה יְתֵירָה שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ מְצִיאָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ – קָנָה חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rami bar Ḥama infers his ruling **from this** clause: If **two** people **were sitting on an animal,** and each of them claims that it is his, each of them takes an oath and they divide the value of the animal. **Why do I** need **this** case **as well?** It teaches no novel *halakha*. **Rather, learn from** this **superfluous** clause in the **mishna** that in a case of **one who** performs an act of acquisition by **lifting a found item on behalf of another, the other** person **acquires** the item.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:21
[Bava Metzia 8a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:21)

וְדִלְמָא, הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּרוֹכֵב נָמֵי קָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But perhaps this** mishna **teaches us that** one **who sits** on an animal **also acquires** it, even though he has not caused the animal to move.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:22
[Bava Metzia 8a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:22)

אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא: בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מוֹדִין אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן עֵדִים – חוֹלְקִין בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. בְּמַאי? אִי בְּמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר, צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר?! אֶלָּא לָאו בִּמְצִיאָה, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ מְצִיאָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ קָנָה חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rami bar Ḥama inferred his ruling **from the last clause** in the mishna: **When they** each **admit** to the validity of the other’s claim **or when they have witnesses** attesting to their claims, **they divide** it **without** taking **an oath. To what** case is the mishna referring? **If** it is referring **to** a case of **buying and selling,** does it **need to be said? Rather, is it not** referring **to a found item?** Accordingly, the reason they divide the item is that they knowingly lifted it together, and they intended to acquire it for both of them. **And learn from it** that in a case of **one who** performs an act of acquisition by **lifting a found item on behalf of another, the other** person **acquires** the item.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:23
[Bava Metzia 8a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:23)

וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ: מִגּוֹ דְּזָכֵי לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ זָכֵי נָמֵי לְחַבְרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And Rava said to you** that this clause is based on a different principle: When one acquires an item, **since he acquires** it **for himself he can also acquire** part of it **for another** person.


###### Bava Metzia 8a:24
[Bava Metzia 8a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/8a:24)

הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹכְבִין. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, אָמַר לִי רַב יְהוּדָה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **two** people **were sitting** on an animal, or one was sitting on the animal and the other one was leading it, and each claims ownership of the animal, they must each take an oath and they divide it. **Rav Yosef said: Rav Yehuda said to me:**