Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 1:4

משנה: רָאָה אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה וְנָפַל עָלֶיהָ וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ זֶה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ זָכָה בָהּ. רָאָה אוֹתָן רָצִין אַחַר מְצִיאָה אַחַר צְבִי שָׁבוּר אַחַר גּוֹזָלוֹת שֶׁלֹּא פֵירֵיחוּ וְאָמַר זָכָת לִי שָׂדִי זָכָת לוֹ. הָיָה צְבִי רָץ כְּדַרְכּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ גוֹזָלוֹת מִפְרִיחִין וְאָמַר זָכָת לִי שָׂדִי לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. MISHNAH: If somebody saw a find and fell upon it³⁵Without moving the find, it is not acquired. The second person in grabbing the find must have moved it a little; therefore, he acquired it. when another person grabbed it, the one who grabbed it acquired it. If one saw people running after a find³⁶Lying on an open field after it was harvested, before the field was ploughed., after an injured deer, after young pigeons unable to fly, and he said: “my field shall acquire it for me”, it acquired it for him³⁷A person’s real estate acquires for its owner any property lying there of which he is cognizant; cf. Gittin 6:2:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.6.2.4">Giṭṭin 6:2, Note 71.. If the deer was running normally, or the pigeons were flying, and he said: “my field shall acquire it for me”, he did not say anything³⁸Animals and birds on a field are not lying there; real estate cannot acquire moving objects..

הלכה: רָאָה אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה כול׳. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אַבָּא כֹהֵן בַּר דְּלָייָה. אָדָם זָכָה בַמְּצִיאָה בְּתוֹךְ ד̇ אמּוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶׁתִּפּוֹל לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ. מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָא עַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. נָטַל מִקְּצַת הַפֵּיאָה וְזָרַק בַּשְּׁאָר אֵין לוֹ בָּהּ כְּלוּם. אָמַר. תִּיפְתָּר בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר. יִזְכּוּ לִי בְד̇ אַמּוֹת שֶׁלִּי. וָמוֹר דְּבַתְרָהּ. נָפַל עָלֶיהָ וּפָרַס טַלִּיתוֹ עָלֶיהָ מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּהּ. עוֹד הִיא בְּשֶּׁלֹּא אָמַר. יִזְכּוּ לִי בְד̇ אַמּוֹת שֶּׁלִּי. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. שְּׁנַיִם שֶּׁהָיוּ מִתְכַּתְּשִּׁין בָּעוֹמֶר וּבָא עָנִי וַחֲטָפוֹ מִלִּפְנֵיהֶן זָכָה בוֹ. עוֹד הִיא בְּשֶּׁלֹּא אָמַר. יִזְכּוּ לִי בְד̇ אַמּוֹת שֶּׁלִּי. וְהָתַנִּינָן. רָאָה אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה וְנָפַל עָלֶיהָ וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ. זֶה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ זָכָה בָהּ. עוֹד הִיא בְּשֶּׁלֹּא אָמַר. יִזְכּוּ לִי בְד̇ אַמּוֹת שֶּׁלִּי. וְהָתַנִּינָן. קָרוֹב לָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. קָרוֹב לוֹ אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. בִּשְׂכַר הַלִּיבֶּלָּר הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. הָתִיבוֹן. וְהָֽכְתִיב וַאֲנִי בְּעוֹנְיִי הֲכִינוֹתִי וגו׳. וְהֵיכִי. אִם בִּנְתוּנִּין בְּתוֹךְ יָדוֹ עָשִׁיר הוּא. אִי בְּשֶׁאֵינָן נְתוּנִּין לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ יֵשׁ אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. הֲוֵי אוֹמֵר. בִּנְתוּנִּין בְּתוֹךְ ד̇ אַמּוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. מַהוּ בְּעוֹנְיִי. שֶׁאֵין עֲשִׁירוּת לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם. דָּבָר אַחֵר. שֶׁהָיָה מִתְעַנֶּה וּמַקְדִּישׁ סְעוּדָתוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם. HALAKHAH: “If somebody saw a find” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said [in the name of] Abba Cohen bar Delaiah³⁹“Resh Laqish” for “R. Simeon ben Laqish” and the omission of “in the name of” are typically Babylonian style.: A person acquires a find within four cubits from himself⁴⁰Peah 4:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.4.2.3">Peah 4:2, Note 31; Gittin 8:3:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.8.3.2-9">Giṭṭin 8:3. If a person stands in the public domain, an ownerless object is within four cubits of him but of no other person, then he has the right to acquire the object and no other person has the right to enter the circle of four cubits around him to take the object. It is clear that taking possession requires intent by the acquirer (cf. Babli Bava meṣi‘a 10a/b).. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it fell into his hand⁴¹No acquisition in the public domain can be effected by thought.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: ⁴²The remainder of this paragraph essentially is from Peah 4:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.4.2">Peah 4:2, Notes 40–46; Gittin 8:3:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.8.3.2-9">Giṭṭin 8:3 (49c line 10).“If he took some of the peah and threw it on the rest, he has nothing of it.”⁴³Taking Peah, the uncut grain at the end of a field, is done from a private domain. But since the Torah grants the poor the right to enter a field after the end of the harvest to collect peah and forgotten stalks and sheaves, the harvested field has the status of public domain for the poor. A poor person acquires peah by taking it. He cannot then take his property and spread it over the remainder of standing produce to claim ownership, neither can he lie down on it for the same purpose. As with any acquisition, an action seems to be needed. He⁴⁴R. Simeon ben Laqish, defending his position. answered: Explain it if the did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But does it not say afterwards: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” That is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state⁴⁵Tosephta Peah 2:2.: “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another poor person came and grabbed it from before them, he is entitled to it³⁵Without moving the find, it is not acquired. The second person in grabbing the find must have moved it a little; therefore, he acquired it..” It is the same; he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If somebody saw a find and fell upon it when another person grabbed it, the one who grabbed it acquired it.” It is the same, he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state⁴⁶Gittin 8:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.8.2.1">Mishnah Giṭṭin 8:2.: “If it landed close to her it is a bill of divorce, close to him it is no bill of divorce, half and half she is divorced and not divorced.” Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah speaks of the scribe’s fee⁴⁷In Gittin 8:3:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.8.3.8">Giṭṭin 8:3, Note 47, the expression is: “The scribe of the second bill of divorce earns money.” Since divorce is a unilateral act by the husband, he has to pay the scribe. But if the wife is “divorced and not divorced”, a second bill of divorce is in the interest of both parties. The husband needs it in order to free himself from the duty to pay for his divorced wife’s upkeep (Gittin 8:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.8.2.3">Giṭṭin 8:2, Note 36), while the ex-wife needs it in order to be able to remarry. Therefore, they share the cost of the second bill.. ⁴⁸The text is a reformulation of Peah 4:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.4.2">Peah 4:2, Notes 29–39; Gittin 8:3:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.8.3.2-9">Giṭṭin 8:3 (49c l. 8). They objected: Is it not written: “I in my poverty did prepare⁴⁹1Chr. 22:14. David in his poverty prepared 100’000 talents of gold and 1’000’000 talents of silver for the future Temple. How can a superrich person be called poor?”? How is that? If it was in his possession, he was rich. If it was not in his possession, how can a person dedicate what is not his? It must be that it was within four cubits from him⁵⁰Peah 4:2:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.4.2.7">Peah 4:2, Note 50.. Rebbi Abin said, what means “in my poverty?” That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence! Another explanation: he fasted⁵¹Reading עני as “to be deprived”. and donated the price of his meal to Heaven.

תַּנֵּי. הָאוֹמֵר. יִזְכֶּה לִי בֵיתִי בִּמְצִיאָה שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לְתוֹכָהּ. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. יָצָא שֵׁם לִמְצִיאָתוֹ דְּבָרָיו קַייָמִין. כְּהָדָא אָרִיסֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי בָּא בַּר מִינָא סְלִיק לְדִיקְלָא אַשְׁכָּח גּוֹזָלִין וְנַסְתּוֹן. אֲזַל שְׁאִל לְרַב. לֹא אָמַר לֵיהּ כְּלוּם. אֲזַל חֲזַר. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מִינָא. קַשְׁייָא לֹן הֲוִיתָא חֲזָרוּתֵי יֹתֵר מִמְּצִיאָתוֹ. It was stated: “One who says, my house^51aAny of his real estate. shall acquire for me any find that fell into it, did not say anything. If the find was known, his words stand⁵²Tosephta 1:4. There, the text reads: “One who says, my house shall acquire for me any find that will fall into it, did not say anything.” This text is intelligible. Real estate acquires for its proprietor by the owner’s will, as expressed in the second sentence. A future find is not foreseeable and cannot be the object of today’s will. In the Halakhah, the past has to be read as future..” As in the case of Rebbi Abba bar Mina’s⁵³It is not impossible that he be R. Abba bar Zamina as conjectured by R. Eliahu Fulda. sharecropper who climbed a date palm⁵⁴On R. Abba’s property., found pigeon chicks there, and took them. He went to ask the master, who said nothing to him⁵⁵He was not quite sure whether the chicks belonged to himself, as property owner, or to his sharecropper, the finder.. He went and returned them. Rebbi Abba bar Mina said, his returning is more difficult for us⁵⁶Since he treated them as ownerless property that nevertheless had an owner, even if it was not clear who the owner was. than his finding.