Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia Chapter 1

שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בַּטַּלִּית זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ זֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי. זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוּת מֵחֶצְיָיהּ וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוּת מֵחֶצְיָיהּ וְיַחֲלוֹקוּ. זֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר חֶצְיָיהּ שֶׁלִּי. הָאוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוּת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים וְהָאוֹמֵר חֶצְיָיהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוּת מֵרְבִיעַ. זֶה נוֹטֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים וְזֶה נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ. שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בַּטַּלִּית כול׳. תַּנֵּי. אָדָם שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵירוֹ. תֵּן לִי מְנָה שֶׁאַתָּה חַיָיב לִי. אָמַר לוֹ. לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם. הָלַךְ וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁחַיָיב לוֹ נ̇ זוּז. רִבִּי חִיָיה רֹבָה אָמַר. הוֹדָיַית עֵדִים כְּהוֹדָיַית פִּיו וְיִשָּׁבַע עַל הַשְׁאָר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֵין הוֹדָיַית עֵדִים כְּהוֹדָיַית פִּיו שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע עַל הַשְׁאָר. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. מִשְּׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בַּטַּלִּית דְּרִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁתָּפוּשׂ בְּחֶצְיָיהּ. (א)לֹא כְּמִי שֶׁהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁחֶצְיָיהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְתֵימַר. נִשְׁבַּע וְנוֹטֵל. אוּף הָדָא דַמְיָיא לָהּ. רַבָּה בַּר מָמָל וְרַב עַמְרָם סְלִיקוּ הֵן דְּרַב בֵּינַיי אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵין מוֹסְרִין שְׁבוּעָה לְחָשׁוּד. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֲפִילוּ לְשׁוֹן שְׁבוּעָה אֵין מוֹסְרִין לוֹ. כֵּיצַד נִשְׁבַּע. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בָהּ וְאֵין לִי בָהּ פָּחוֹת (מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה) [מֵחֶצְיָהּ]. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם מִזּוֹ שְׁבוּעַת תַּקָּנָה הִיא. תַּנֵּי. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ תוֹפְסִין בִּשְׁטָר. זֶה אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלִּי וְאָבַד מִמֶּנִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלִּי הוּא שֶׁפְּרַעְתִּיו לָךְ. יִתְקַיֵים הַשְׁטָר בְּחוֹתְמָיו. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן [שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן] גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. יַחֲלוֹקוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתָּפוּס בָּעֵדִים. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. אִין שְׁמַעְתּוּנֵיהּ אֲתִיַית כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן. זֶה אוֹמֵר חֶצְיָיהּ שֶׁלִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. שְׁלִישָׁהּ שֶׁלִּי. הָאוֹמֵר חֶצְיָיהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוֹת מֵרְבִיעַ. וְהָאוֹמֵר שְׁלִישָׁהּ שֶׁלִּי יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁלְּדָבָר. אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבַּע אֶלָּא עַל חֲצִי שֶׁהוֹדָה.

MISHNAH: 10:4, Note 62 . If two persons hold on to one toga and each of them says “I found it” [or] “it wholly belongs to me”, each of them has to swear that he owns no less than half of it and they shall divide it evenly23:1 ) “not to lend a hand to a wicked person to be an extortionary witness”, i. e., it is forbidden to administer an oath to a known felon (Mishnah Šebuot 7:4). But if each party only swear to the amount it actually will receive, it is possible that both swear to the truth. The formulation “no less than” implies that the oath is true even if one of them is the full owner; the language of the oaths does not contradict the claims brought before the court. . If one says “it wholly belongs to me” and one says “half of it belongs to me”, the one who says “it wholly belongs to me” shall swear that he owns no less than three parts always means / n +1 . and the one who says “half of it belongs to me” shall swear that he owns no less than a quarter the underlying principle is: “Amounts in doubt are split evenly”. If neither party has proof by document or witnesses and A claims 100% of an amount available but B only claims 50%, 50% are assigned to A as undisputed amount. The remaining 50% are in dispute and have to be split evenly; each of the the parties receives 25%. . The first one takes three parts, the second takes a fourth. HALAKHAH: “If two people hold on to one stole,” etc. 2:1, Notes 12–15 . It was stated: One person said to another, give me the mina of 100 drachmas (denars). Zuz, “half sheqel” is the talmudic name of the denar. which you owe me. He answered, it never happened. He went and brought witnesses that the other owed him 50 zuz. The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, the confession of the witnesses is the same as his own confession; he has to swear about the remainder 6:1 based on Ex. 22:8 . The rabbinic interpretation of the biblical expression אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה is “if he [the defendant] agrees that there be a case.” If the defendant in a civil suit, in which there are no witnesses or documents, denies the entire claim, he does not have to swear a biblical oath (he may have to swear a rabbinical oath). But if he agrees to part of the claim, he has to swear a biblical oath to free himself from the remainder. Only if the claim is advanced as tentative, then any admission by the defendant is a gift to the claimant and by rabbinic rule no oath of any kind is due. (Cf. Giṭṭin 5:3, Note 84 ). . Rebbi Joḥanan said, the confession of the witnesses is not the same as his own confession that he should have to swear 22:8 insists on the defendant’s agreeing to part of the claim, witnesses can never force a judicial oath. This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli. In Ketubot ( loc. cit. Note 7), R. Joḥanan denies that the oath is biblical; its rules cannot be determined by biblical arguments. . Rebbi La said, Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder’s statement is implied by “if two people hold on to one stole”. Since he holds on to half of it, is it not as if he brought witnesses that one half belongs to him? Could one not say that he swears and collects? Is this a similar case is biblical; R. La’s argument is impossible. (In Ketubot, R. La quotes R. Joḥanan’s statement in the next paragraph.) ? This topic came up between Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rav Amram. One said, one does not entrust an oath to a suspect person. The other said, one does not even formulate an oath for such a one. Rav Huna said: “An oath that I have property rights to it to the amount of no less than (the value of a peruṭah ) [half of its value]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if it is about this, it is an institutional oath instituted rabbinical ordinance. In the words of the Babli (3a ), “lest it be easy to assert unfounded claims on another person’s property.” . It was stated 1:1, Notes 68–71 ; Babli Bava meṣi‘a 7a , Bava batra 170a . : “If two persons were holding a document and one said, it is mine but I had lost it; the other said, it is mine since I paid you. The document should be validated by its signatories, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, they should split.” Rabbi Eleazar said, it all depends on who is holding the signatures. Rav Ḥisda said, if this is true information, it follows Rabban Simeon. One says, half is mine; the other says, a third is mine. The one who says that half is his shall swear that no less than a quarter be his; the one who says that a third is his shall swear that no less than a sixth be his. The principle involved: One only swears on half of what he agreed to is mine; the other says, a third is mine. The one who says that all is his shall swear that no less than five parts (5/6) are his; the one who says that a third is his shall swear that no less than a sixth is his. The principle involved: One only swears on half of what he agreed to.” In the case of the Tosephta, the second claimant surrenders 2/3 to the first. Only 1/3 is in dispute; it is split evenly. The first one receives 2/3 + 1/6 = 5/6; the second receives 1/6. Rabbinic practice decrees that one only swears on half of the amount which is in dispute; in this case each would swear that he owns no less that one sixth in addition to what he has by consensus [Maimonides, Ṭo‘en weniṭ‘an 9:8 ( Maggid Mišneh ad 9:9), Šulḥan ‘Arukh Ḥošen Mišpaṭ 138:2 (Note)]. In the Yerushalmi the total of the claims only adds up to 5/6; they can be satisfied in full. There is no reason why anybody should swear. One has to explain the baraita as dealing with a case of bankruptcy in which the claims themselves are not sufficiently documented and can each be considered only by an affirmatory oath. .

הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד רוֹכֵב וְאֶחָד מְהַלֵּךְ. זֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי. זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוּת מֵחֶצְיָיהּ וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָחוּת מֵחֶצְיָיהּ וְיַחֲלוֹקוּ. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מוֹדִין אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ להֶן עֵדִים חוֹלְקִין בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה. הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹכְבִין עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָא. תַּנֵּיי תַּמֵּן. אִשָּׁה שֶׁהָיְתָה רְכוּבָה עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה וּשְׁנַיִם מִנְהִיגִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאוֹמֶרֶת. אֵילּוּ עֲבָדַיי וְהַחֲמוֹר וְהַמַּשְּׂאוּי שֶׁלִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. זוֹ אִשְׁתִּי וְזֶה עַבְדִּי וְהַחֲמוֹר וְהַמַּשְּׂאוּי שֶׁלִּי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. זוֹ אִשְׁתִּי וְזֶה עַבְדִּי וְהַחֲמוֹר וְהַמַּשְּׂאוּי שֶׁלִּי. צְרִיכָה גֵט מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן. וּצְרִיכָה לְשַׁחְרֵר אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן. וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מְשַׁחְרְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וּבַחֲמוֹר וּבְמַשְּׁאוּי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן שָׁוִין.

MISHNAH: If two persons were riding on an animal or one was riding and one was walking, each of them says “it wholly belongs to me”, each of them has to swear that he owns no less than half of it and they shall divide it evenly. If they agree or if they have witnesses, they divide without an oath. HALAKHAH: “If two persons were riding on an animal,” etc. Rebbi Ḥuna said: It was stated there 65b , in the name of Rav Aḥdevoi bar Ammi who lived a generation before R. Ḥuna and was known for his construction of impossible situations. : “A woman comes riding on an animal and two men lead her. She says: these are my slaves; the donkey and the load are mine. Each of them says: this is my wife, the other is my slave, and the donkey and the load are mine 10:5 Note 96 , Bikkurim 3:4 Note 72 , Ketubot 3:3 Note 56 ; Babli Ketubot 18b ). In line with the principles of Mishnah 1 , the court has to impose a solution compatible with all statements. . She needs a bill of divorce from both of them from either of the men. From Mishnah Qiddušin 3:11 it would seem that therefore she can marry another person without a bill of divorce, as stated explicitly in the Babli; but the formulation in the Yerushalmi does not seem to support this statement. and has to manumit both of them. They have to manumit one another. In the donkey and the load they are equal co-owners.

הָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְרָאָה אֶה הַמְּצִיאָה וְאָמַר לַחֲבֵירוֹ תְּנֵיהָ לִי וּנְטָלָהּ אָמַר אֲנִי זָכִיתִי בָהּ זָכָה בָהּ. אִם מִשֶּׁנְּתָנָהּ לוֹ אָמַר אֲנִי זָכִיתִי בָהּ תְּחִילָּה לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. הָיָה רָכוּב עַל הַבְּהֵמָה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. הָדָא הִילְכְתָא לֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם לֹא מֵרֹאשָׁהּ וְלֹא מִסּוֹפָהּ. הָיָה רָכוּב עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה וְרָאָה אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה וְאָמַר לַחֲבֵירוֹ. תְּנֵיהָ לִי. נְטָלָהּ וְאָמַר. אֲנִי זָכִיתִי בָהּ. זָכָה בָהּ. אִילּוּ אָמַר. זְכֵה לִי. זָכָה. הֲוֵי לֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם לֹא מֵרֵישָׁא וְלֹא מִסֵּיפָא.

MISHNAH: Somebody was riding on an animal when he saw a find and said to another person: “give it to me”. If [that one] took it and said: “I acquired it”, he acquired it Note 100 . . If after he had handed it over, he said: “I acquired it first,” he did not say anything. HALAKHAH: “Somebody was riding on an animal,” etc. Rebbi Isaac says, from this rule one cannot infer anything, not from its beginning nor from its end. “Somebody was riding on an animal when he saw a find and said to another person: ‘give it to me’. If [that one] took it and said: ‘I acquired it’, he acquired it”. If he had said, “acquire it for me”, he would have acquired it. That means, from this rule one cannot infer anything, not from its beginning nor from its end points out, this refers to the disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish ( Peah 4:6, Note 112 ), on whether a person can acquire a find for another person by lifting it. The Mishnah does not help in solving the dispute. The first sentence does not help since it does not exclude that had the rider said, “acquire it for me” instead of “give it to me”, the walker would have acquired it for the rider by lifting and would not have been able to claim that he acquired it. The second sentence does not have to be quoted since it obviously is irrelevant for the disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish. .

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. רָאָה אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה כול׳. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אַבָּא כֹהֵן בַּר דְּלָיָיה. 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 חִיָיה. 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. וְהָכְתִיב 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. תַּנֵּי. הָאוֹמֵר. יִזְכֶּה לִי בֵיתִי בִּמְצִיאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתוֹכָהּ. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. יָצָא שֵׁם לִמְצִיאָתוֹ דְּבָרָיו קַיָימִין. 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. קַשְׁיָיא לֹן הֲוִיתָא חֲזָרוּתֵי יֹתֵר מִמְּצִיאָתוֹ.

MISHNAH: If somebody saw a find and fell upon it when another person grabbed it, the one who grabbed it acquired it. If one saw people running after a find, after an injured deer, after young pigeons unable to fly, and he said: “my field shall acquire it for me”, it acquired it for him 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 anything. HALAKHAH: “If somebody saw a find” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said [in the name of] Abba Cohen bar Delaiah: A person acquires a find within four cubits from himself 4:2, Note 31 ; 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 hand. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: 4:2, Notes 40–46 ; Giṭṭin 8:3 (49c line 10). “If he took some of the peah and threw it on the rest, he has nothing of it.” 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. He 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 state 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 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 state 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 fee 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 ( 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. . 4:2, Notes 29–39 ; Giṭṭin 8:3 (49c l. 8). They objected: Is it not written: “I in my poverty did prepare 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 him 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 fasted and donated the price of his meal to Heaven. It was stated: “One who says, my house shall acquire for me any find that fell into it, did not say anything. If the find was known, his words stand 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’s sharecropper who climbed a date palm, found pigeon chicks there, and took them. He went to ask the master, who said nothing to him. He went and returned them. Rebbi Abba bar Mina said, his returning is more difficult for us than his finding.

מְצִיאַת בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים וְעַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שֶלּוֹ. מְצִיאַת בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים וְעַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁגֵּרְשָׁהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לָהּ אֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ שֶׁלָּהֶן. מְצִיאַת בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּשֶׁאֵינָן טְפוּלִין לָאֲבִיהֶן. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ טְפוּלִין לָאֲבִיהֶן מְצִיאָתָן שֶׁלּוֹ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵין אָדָם זוֹכֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ בִּמְצִיאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי [הִילָא]. לֹא דָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָכֵן אֶלָּא דְקָשִׁי לֵיהּ עַל הָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּכָל מְלָאכָה מְצִיאָתוֹ לַבַעַל הַבַּיִת. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רְשׁוּת לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ תְּהֵא מְצִיאָתוֹ לְרַבּוֹ. מָה בֵּין עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים לְעַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ מִמְּלַכְתּוֹ מְצִיאָתוֹ לְעַצְמוֹ. עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים הוֹאִיל וְרַשַּׁאי לְשַׁנּוֹתָן מִמְּלַאכְתָּן מְצִיאָתָן לְרַבָּן. הָתִיבוֹן. הֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַׁאי לְשַׁנּוֹת מִמְּלַאכְתָּהּ וּמְצִיאָתָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. כּוֹפָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת בַּצֶּמֶר. וְאֵינוֹ כוֹפָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּדָבָר אַחֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מִינָא וְרִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעַם אַחֵר בָּאִשָּׁה. מַה טַעַם אַחֵר בָּאִשָּׁה. רִבִּי חַגַּיי אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי הַקְּטָטָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא מַבְרַחַת נִיכְסֵי בַעֲלָה וְאוֹמֶרֶת. מְצִיאָה הִיא. הָתִיבוֹן בָּעֵדִים לֹא אָסְרוּ זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי זֶה. מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁגֵּירְשָׁהּ. רִבִּי יוֹסָנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. אָדָם שֶׁגֵּירַשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ חַיָיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לָהּ פְּרוּטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁגֵּירְשָׁהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. הוֹאִיל וְחַיָיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לָהּ פְּרוּטָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה תְּהֵא מְצִיאָתָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ. לְפוּם כֵן צָרַךְ מִתְנִיתָא.

MISHNAH: The find of his small son or daughter, or of his Canaanite 1:3 . male or female slave, his wife’s find contract that the wife’s earnings, including her finds, are the husband’s, since the latter is responsible for his wife’s expenses. This clause can be modified by contract if the wife earns her own money and renounces her claim to her upkeep by the husband ( Ketubot 7:1, Note 9 ). , these are his. The find of his adult son or daughter, or of his Hebrew male or female slave 1:2 . , his wife’s find after he divorced her even though he did not yet pay her ketubah , these are their own. HALAKHAH: “The find of his small son or daughter,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if they are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to the latter6:1, Note 21 . . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, a person cannot acquire a find for another. Rebbi [Hila] added from E.. said: Not that Rebbi Simeon had formulated thus, but he had a problem with what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If a person hires a worker for any work, the latter’s finds belong to the employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, should the finds of a person who can resign at any moment belong to his employer 4:6, Notes 108–110 . The statement naturally is not applicable to a worker hired to scout for finds ( Babli 12b ). ? What is the difference between his Hebrew male and female slaves and his Canaanite male and female slaves? Rebbi Joḥanan said, since he is not empowered to change the employment of his male 26:39 prohibits to let the male Hebrew slave “work slave’s work”. This is interpreted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 1, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 160, Sifra Behar Pereq 7(3 ) that the slave must be employed in the trade he exercised before being sold. or female Hebrew slave, that one’s find belongs to himself. Since he is empowered to change the employment of his male or female Canaanite slave, their find belongs to their master. They objected: He is not empowered to change the employment of his wife, but her find belongs to him. As we have stated there: “He forces her to work with wool, 5:6 ” he cannot force her to work any other material 5:6, Note 163 . . 6:1, Notes 17–21 . Rebbi Abba bar Mina and Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: there is another reason in the case of the wife. What is another reason in the case of the wife? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because of quarrel40b . The husband should not be angry that he has to pay for all of his wife’s needs but cannot get his hands on her find. . Rebbi Yose said, lest she smuggle away her husband’s property and say: it is a find. They objected: before witnesses several similar instances are invoked. to explain the question: מַה מַפְקָה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. מָצָאת בָּעֵדִים. מָאן דָּמַר מִפְּנֵי הַקְּטָטָה. אֵין כָּאן קְטָטָה. וּמָאן דָּמַר שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא מַבְרַחַת נְכָסִים מִשֶּׁל בַּעֲלָה וְאוֹמֶרֶת מְצִיאָה מָצָאתִי. הָא בָּעֵדִים לֹא אָֽסְרוּ זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי זֶה. What is the difference between them? If she found it in the presence of witnesses. For him who says, because of quarrel, would there not be quarrel? For him who says, lest she smuggle away her husband’s property and say: I found a find, it follows that before witnesses they forbade one because of the other. ? They forbade no verb is mentioned in this sentence. R. Yose holds that the worst case has to be presumed in all situations since detailed investigation probably is impossible. one because of the other no verb is mentioned in this sentence. R. Yose holds that the worst case has to be presumed in all situations since detailed investigation probably is impossible. . “His wife’s find after he divorced her.” Rebbi Yosana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A man who divorced his wife without paying her ketubah is liable for her upkeep until he gave her the last penny 6:2 (30c line 57) Note 22 . Alfasi ( Ketubot Chapter 13, # 390) proves that the Babli disagrees and limits the husband’s liability to the amount of the ketubah. . Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “his wife’s find after he divorced her.” Rebbi Hoshaiah said, the Mishnah is needed lest you say that because he is liable for her upkeep until he gave her the last penny, her find should be his.

מָצָא שְׁטָרֵי חוֹב אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶם אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִים לֹא יַחֲזִיר שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן. אֵין בָּהֶם אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִים יַחֲזִיר שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ לֹא יַחֲזִיר שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן. מָצָא שְׁטָרֵי חוֹב כוּל׳. תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בֵּין שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשּׁ בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין וּבֵין שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. עֵל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר הוּא מַחֲזִיר. לָצוּר עַל פִּי צְלוֹחִיתוֹ. רַב אָמַר. יוֹרֵשׁ כִּמְשׁוּעְבָּד. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּלְוָה בְעֵדִים אֵינָהּ נִיגְבִּית מִמְּשׁוּעְבָּדִין כָּךְ אֵינָהּ נִגְבִּית מִן הַיּוֹרשִׁין. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. דְּאִיקנֵי אֵינָהּ גוֹבֶה מִמְּשׁוּעְבָּדִין. הָא מִבְּנֵי חֹרֵי גָבֵי. הָכָא אָתָּ מַר. גּוֹבֶה. וְהָכָא אָתָּ מַר. אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה. לֹא דָמֵי מִי שֶׁשִּׁיעְבֵּד מִקְּצָת לְמִי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁיעְבֵּד כָּל עִיקָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר. כָּתַב לִלְווֹת וְלֹא לָוָוה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אִם הָיָה הַלּוֹוֶה מוֹדֶה הֲרֵי זֶה יַחֲזִיר. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אִם הוּחְזַק הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה הֲרֵי זֶה יַחֲזִיר. וּתְלִיתְהוֹן מִתַּבְּרִין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ לֹא יַחֲזִיר. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי קֳיְנוֹנִיָיא. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם הָיָה זְמַנּוֹ יוֹצֵא לְבוֹ בַיּוֹם יַחֲזִיר. [וַאֲפִילוּ אֵין זְמַנּוֹ יוֹצֵא לבוֹא בַיּוֹם יַחֲזִיר. מָהוּ פְליג. ומד רִבִּי אַבָּהוּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי קֳנוֹנִיָיה. ומד רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם הָיָה זְמַנּוֹ יוֹצֵא לְבוֹא בַיּוֹם יַחֲזִיר.]

MISHNAH: One who found documents of indebtedness containing an alienation clause should not return them since the court will foreclose on their basis but probably it came with its Accadic name šatārum “written document” from Babylonian practice. . If they do not contain an alienation clause, he should return them since the court will not foreclose on their basis, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in no case should he return them since the court will foreclose on their basis. HALAKHAH: “One who found documents of indebtedness,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Both based on a document containing an alienation clause or a document containing no alienation clause, he collects from unincumbered property. Following this opinion of Rebbi Meïr, to what purpose does he return it? To cover the mouth of his pitcher It seems to refer to another tradition of R. Meïr’s, quoted in the Babli, 13a , by Samuel: A contract containing no alienation clause cannot be used to foreclose. This means that such a contract is hardly worth the paper it is written on. E has a different text with an additional sentence: תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בֵּין שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשּׁ בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין וּבֵין שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין משׁוּעֲבָּדִים. וַחֲכָמִים אומ׳ שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשּׁ בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין משׁוּעֲבָּדִים וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחֵרָיוּת נְכָסִין אֵנוֹ גוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִין משׁוּעֲבָּדִים. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Both based on a document containing an alienation clause or a document containing no alienation clause, he collects from incumbered property. But the Sages say, he collects from incumbered property based on a document containing an alienation clause, but based on a document containing no alienation clause, he cannot collect from incumbered property. S. Lieberman suggests to read תַּמָּן אוֹמְרִים “there (in Babylonia), they say” instead of “but the Sages say.” This then properly refers the entire discussion to positions of R. Meïr quoted in the Halakhah. One could also suggest to read אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים “others say,” and refer to the opinion stated as R. Meïr’s in Ketubot 4:9, Note 217 , which is identical with that quoted here in the name of the “Sages”. . 10:1, Notes 12–13 . Rav’s statement is a reformulation, Samuel’s a copy. Rav said, an heir is like the holder of encumbered property. Just as a loan executed before witnesses cannot be collected from encumbered property, so it cannot be collected from heirs. Samuel said, what was received cannot be foreclosed on mortgaged property, but on free property it can be foreclosed. Here you say, it can be collected, but there you say, it cannot be collected. There is no comparison between one who agreed to a small lien and one who never agreed to a lien. Rebbi Eleazar said, for I am saying that he wanted to take a loan but did not 10:5 permits to write a mortgage document for the debtor and have it signed even though the creditor not be present at that moment. As the Babli, 12b , explains, the problem with this is that the mortgage might have been executed in April but the loan was given only in October. If the debtor sold real estate in the meantime, the buyer in effect bought unencumbered property while the mortgage document falsely classified it as encumbered. Therefore, the Babli restricts the permission to mortgage deeds with which the title to the land is immediately deposited with the creditor, the Egyptian ὑπάλλαγμα (cf. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Graeco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, pp. 208 ff.) The Yerushalmi ( loc. cit. Halakhah 10:5) gives standing in court only to unilateral promises of payment for future services. . Rebbi Eleazar said, if the debtor agreed, he should return it. Rebbi Eleazar said, if the document was generally known to be in the creditor’s hand, he should return it. But all three are broken, “the Sages say, in no case should he return them.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of conspiracy3:9, Note 133 . Lender and borrower might conspire to defraud the innocent buyer; see Note 84 . . Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If its date was that very day, he should return it. But could he not return it if the date was not of the same day? Do they disagree? But Rebbi Abbahu said* in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of conspiracy. Rebbi Joḥanan said*: If its date was that very day, he should return it.

מָצָא גִיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁיחֲרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים דִּיַיתֵיקֵי מַתָּנָה וְשׁוֹבְרִין הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחֲזִיר שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר כְּתוּבִין הָיוּ וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא לִתְּנָן. מָצָא גִיטֵּי נָשִׁים כול׳. תַּנֵּי. מָצָא גִיטִּין וּכְתוּבּוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה יַחֲזִיר. וּכְתוּבָּה לֹא הִיא חֲזָקָה. שְׁטָר שֶׁלָּוָה בוֹ וּפְרָעוֹ לֹא יַחֲזוֹר וְיִגְבֶּה בוֹ מִפְּנֵי מֵירַע כּוֹחָן שֶׁל לְקוּחוֹת. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַאֲפִילוּ לְבוֹ בַיּוֹם. רִבִּי זֵירָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. הָכָא אַתָּ מַר. אֲפִילוּ לְבוֹ בַיּוֹם. וְהָכָא אַתָּ מַר. אִם זְמַנּוֹ יוֹצֵא לְבוֹ בַיּוֹם יַחֲזִיר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אָדָם מָצוּי לִלְוֹת וְלִפְרוֹעַ לְבוֹ בַיּוֹם. וְאֵין אָדָם עָשׂוּי לִפְרוֹעַ וְלִלְוֹות לְבוֹ בַיּוֹם. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. הוּא הַזְּמָן וְהֵן הָעֵדִים וְהוּא הַמִּלְוָה מָהוּ מִפְּנֵי מֵירַע כּוֹחָן שֶׁל לְקוּחוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ נְכָסִים. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. בְּשֶׁלֹּא חָתְמוּ הָעֵדִים עַל אוֹתָהּ הַמִּלְוָה.

MISHNAH: One who found women’s bills of divorce If the ketubah was paid, the bill should be torn up. Therefore, one could assume that the woman would take care to watch over the document and, in case it was lost, to publicly announce its loss and ask the public to return it to her. In the absence of such a public announcement, the finder has to assume that the bill was not delivered. Similar arguments apply to the other documents enumerated in the Mishnah. or slaves’ bills of manumission, dispositions of gift or receipts should not return them since I say that they were written but he changed his mind not to deliver them. HALAKHAH: “One who found women’s bills of divorce,” etc. It was stated: One whou found women’s bills of divorce with ketubot which either had a receipt written on it or was torn where the witnesses had signed as proof of liquidation of the debt. Then the bill certainly had been delivered to the woman, the ketubah had been paid, and no monetary consequences would follow the return of the bill to the woman. The baraita does not contradict the Mishnah. E has a different formulation of the last sentence: .וּכְתוּבָּה לֹא הוּחְזְקָה בְיַד הָאִשָּׁה Was the ketubah not prima facie evidence in the woman’s hand? should return them.” Is the ketubah not prime facie evidence? If a person took a documented loan and paid it back, he cannot use the document to take a second loan because it diminishes the power of the buyers. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even on the same day. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Here you say, even on the same day. But there, you say, if its date was that very day, he should return it! He answered, a person is apt to take a loan and repay it the same day, but a person is not apt to repay a loan and take it the same day evidence, as in the cases of the Mishnah. . Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yasa: It is the same day, the same witnesses, and the same amount. What is the meaning of “it diminishes the power of the buyers”? He answered, if the property had not been mortgaged. But some say, if the witnesses did not sign for this loan.

מָצָא אִגְרוֹת שׁוּם וְאִגְרוֹת מָזוֹן וּשְׁטָרֵי חֲלִיצָה וּמֵאוּנִין וּשְׁטָרֵי בֵירוּרִין וְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה יַחֲזִיר. מָצָא בַחֲפִיסָה אוֹ בִגְלוֹסָּקָּמָּא תַּכְרִיךְ שֶׁל שְׁטָרוֹת אוֹ אֲגוּדָה שֶׁל שְׁטָרוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה יַחֲזִיר. וְכַמָּה הִיא אֲגוּדָה שֶׁל שְׁטָרוֹת שְׁלֹשָׁה קְשׁוּרִין זֶה בָזֶה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אֶחָד הַלּוֹוֶה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה יַחֲזִיר לַלּוֹוֶה שְׁלֹשָׁה הַלּוֹוִים מֵאֶחָד יַחֲזִיר לַמַּלְוֶה. מָצָא שְׁטָר בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹתֵיו וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מַה טִיבוֹ יְהֵא מוּנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. אִם יֵש עִמָּהֶן סִמְפוֹן יַעֲשֶׂה מַה שֶׁבְּסִימְפוֹן. מָצָא אִיגְרוֹת שׁוּם כול׳. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. אִם הָיָה אִישֻּׁר הַדַּיָינִין הֲרֵי זֶה יַחֲזִיר. רִבִּי חָמָא אָבוֹי דְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אָמַר. אַשְׁלֵי דַיָינִין שֶׁבַּגָּלֻּיּוֹת גָּזְלֵי דַיָינִין שֶׁבְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. רַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר. נִכְתְּבָה אוֹנוֹ בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן נִיתַּן הַכֶּסֶף בָּעֲשָׂרָה בְנִיסָן צְרִיכִין לִכְתּוֹב. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ כְתָב בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן כֵּן נִגְמַר שֶׁיִּתֵּן הַכֶּסֶף בָּעֲשָׂרָה בְנִיסָן. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. סִימְפוֹן שֶׁיּוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה בִּכְתַב יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה פָּסוּל. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מִתְעַסֵּק הָיָה בִשְׁטָרוֹתָיו. הָא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָן בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. לְעוֹלָם אֵין סִימְפוֹן כָּשֵׁר עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה בִּכְתַב יְדֵי הַלֹּוֶה. וְהָתַנִּינָן. שֶׁלֹּא פִיקַּדְנוּ אַבָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ שְׁטָר בֶּין שְׁטָרוֹתָיו שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָרוּעַ. הָא אִם נִמְצָא פָרוּעַ. מַאי כְדוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר כְּגוֹן הָדָא דִיַיתֵיקֵי. שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מָצוּי לְפַגֵּם דִיַיתֵיקִין שֶׁלּוֹ.

MISHNAH: One who found letters of appraisal, letters of sustenance, or documents of ḥalîṣah or repudiation, or documents of arbitration, or any other court document, should return them. If he found in a basket or in a box a bundle or joined documents he should return them. How many are joined documents? Three documents connected one to the other. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if one persons borrows from three, he should return it to the borrower; if three persons borrow from one, he should return it to the lender. If he found a document among his documents whose nature was unknown to him, it should lie there until Elijah comes. If it has an agreement as a receipt; R. Hananel explains “receipt or codicill”. attached to it, he should follow the agreement. HALAKHAH: “One who found letters of appraisal,” etc. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If it contained a certification by the court, it should be returned. Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia said, the tamarisks among the judges of the diaspora are like chicks among the judges of the Land of Israel. Rav Hamnuna said, if the sale contract was written on the first of Nisan but payment was only on the tenth of Nisan I 30a, the Babli disputes the validity of any sale document predating the transfer of ownership. , they have to write: Even though we wrote the document on the first of Nisan it was agreed that payment be made on the tenth of Nisan. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: A stipulation produced by the creditor in the creditor’s handwrtiting is invalid I 41a (Notes מט to נא) gives two slightly different versions of parts of this paragraph. , for I am saying that he has trained in writing documents. This implies that in the hand of another it would be valid. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: A stipulation is only valid if it is in the possession of the creditor but written by the debtor. But did we not state 7:9, quoted Ketubot 9:7 (Note 177 ), Sanhedrin 8:6 (20b l. 62), Babli 20b , Šebuot 45. This is the oath required from heirs if they sue for payment of IOU’s they inherited. It is clear that the creditor’s heirs are not the creditor himself. : “That our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents that this note was paid.” Therefore, it might be found paid. What about this? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that it was a testamentary gift., since people are not likely to impair their testamentary gifts7:9, 38a l. 48. .