Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 34

gaged after the date of certification. And also the case in which it must be divided, also means its value ; because if not so, how would you explain the case in our Mishna, where the garment is to be divided ? Should it be cut in pieces and damaged ? Surely not, but it means the value of it should be divided, and the same is the case here." * Rami bar Hama said : " From the decision of our Mishna (that when both claim to have found a garment, which means that both picked it up, both are entitled to it, and it is to be divided), it is to be inferred that if one sees an article upon the ground, and tells his companion to pick it up for him, the latter acquires the title. For if it could be borne in mind that it is not so, the case of our Mishna when both picked it up, for the pur- pose that they should get title to it, each half that belongs to one of them was also picked up by the other, and consequently both should not get title to it, and it should still be considered as it is still upon the ground, so that any other may take it out of their hands, and acquire title for himself. Infer from this, that so it is." Rabha, however, says : " This is no support at all. It may be said that one cannot get title to a found thing through another, even when the other does not intend to keep it for himself. The case in the Mishna, however, is different, be- cause each of them intends to get title to it, and in the same time, when he gets title for himself, he acquires title to the other half for his companion. And a support to it is to be found in the following : If one commands his messenger he shall steal some- thing, and he did so, the sender is free ; but if they were partners and had stolen something together, both are liable. And why ? Is it not because at the same time that he bears the guilt for himself, he bears it also for his neighbor? " Infer from this, that so it is. The same said again : Now that we are coming to the con- clusion that we can use " the theory of because," if a deaf and * The text of this page is so complicated that it is difficult to explain its exact meaning, for we cannot understand the meaning of Rabbina's explanation, and also the difference between holding the text of a note, or the certification of the same, as the court certifies only that the text is legal. We could not find any one of the com- mentators who was able to interpret this clearly. Still, according to our method, we :ould not omit it, and, therefore, we have translated it almost literally. 14 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. healthy man picked up a found article together, neither of them gets title to it, because, as the deaf man cannot get title for himself, the healthy one cannot get title to it. And lest one say, why should the healthy one be considered worse off than if he too were deaf, for in such a case when both are deaf, both get title to it ? The reason is, that in such a case it is only an enactment of the sages, that they shall not come to blows ; but here, when the healthy one does not acquire title, the deaf one will say : " If the healthy one does not get title of it, how should I get title to it ? " ^' If two are riding^ R. Joseph said : R. Jehudah told me as follows : " I have heard from Mar Samuel two things, in the case when one is riding and the other is leading. In one case he de- cided that he acquires title to it and in the other that he does not, and I cannot recollect in which case it is and in which not." Let us see what was the case ! Shall we assume that if one was riding on a found animal and somebody came and took it away from him, and in the same way was the case with the leader, that one was leading a found animal and somebody took it away from him, is it possible that Samuel could declare in the latter case that the leader did not get title to it ? (The law is that leading gives title.) Consequently if Samuel declared in one case th^at he had not, it is riding only.) And R. Jehudah would not doubt it.) When, however, he was in doubt, it must be the following case, when one was a-riding, and the other was the leader of the same animal, and in this case Samuel declared that one had ac- quired title to it and the other not ; and his doubt was if the rider had the preference because he held the animal, or the leader because the animal was going by his leading ? Said R. Joseph again : " R. Jehudah told me, let us find out the meaning of Sam- uel from the following Mishna : If one was sitting in a wagon of Kelaim and another was leading it, each of them gets the forty stripes. R. Meir, however, sets free the sitting one " [Kelaim, VIII., 4]. Samuel, however, changed the names and declared that the sages made him free, and this was because so the Halakha prevails. Infer from this that, riding, one does not acquire title even when there is no leader, and much less when there is another one who leads it. Said Abayi to R. Joseph : " How can the master decide the case of riding from the case of sitting ? The riding one holds the bridle, which is not the case with the sitting one." And he answered : " So taught Idi : A bridle does not give any title." TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE), 15 It was taught, also, by R. Helbou in the name of R. Huna, that a bridle gives title only when it is givenhand to hand ; a found animal, however, or if it was from the inheritance of a proselyte who dies without heirs, it does not. For what purpose is the bridle termed Mussira ? * Said Rabha : " Idi explained to me that this expression was used because it contains in it de- livery," And, therefore, if his neighbor delivers to him the bridle of the animal, he has bought it, and he acquires title. Of a found animal or of the inheritance stated above, in which there is no one who can deliver it to him, title cannot be acquired. An objection was raised from our Mishna. "When two were riding upon an animal," etc., according to whom would be this statement ? Certainly not according to R. Meir, who declared that even sitting gives title, so much the more riding. It must be, therefore, that it is according to the rabbis, from which it is to be inferred that riding gives title. Nay, the Mishna may treat of a case when the riding one leads the animal by striking her with his feet. But if it is so, he is the leader? Yea, there are two kinds of leaders. Lest one say, that the riding one has the preference, because he does both, holds and leads it, the Mishna therefore comes to teach us that both are equal. (Another objection was raised.) Come and hear: "Two who were pulling a camel or leading an ass, or one of them was pulling and the other leading, by such an act the title is recognized."