Two people are holding a cloak. One says, “I found it” and the other says, “I found it”;

One says “It’s all mine”, and the other says, “It’s all mine”.

One swears that he doesn't own less than half of it, the other one swears that he doesn't own less than half of it, and they split.

One says, “It’s all mine” and the other says, “It’s half mine”.

The one who says, “It’s all mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¾ and the one who says “It’s half mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¼.

This one takes ¾ and the other one takes ¼.

And what was said, "This one says all of it is mine . . ." is discussing when a seller sold the cloak to one of two people that was found in front of him for a known price and each one of them gave to him the that amount, and he took from one of them willingly and from the second against his will - but he received it from him with the intention that he would return it.

And the seller was unsure which one of them he sold to, and each one of the buyers claimed that he sold it to

me willingly.

And from our principles, that the one who swears, who is taking something with his oath, should not swear about more than he will be allowed to take with that oath, therefore he swears he doesn't he have less than half, he does not swear that all of it belongs to him, since he is only taking half of it. And on all of these laws you can ask and you can judge.

Two people were astride an animal, or one was astride and the other was leading; and one said, “It is all mine”, and the other said “It is all mine”; they each swear that they don’t own less than half of it and they divide it.

If they agree, or if there are witnesses, they can split the animal without an oath.

If someone was astride an animal and saw something lost and said to his fellow, “Give it to me”, and the other took it and said, “I have acquired it”, he has acquired it.

But if after he gave it to him he said, “I acquired it first”, he has said nothing.

If someone saw lost property and fell upon it and someone else came along and took hold of it it, the one that took hold of it acquired it.

If a man saw people running after lost property - a deer with a broken leg, or pigeons that couldn’t fly - and he said, “My field acquires for me”, he has acquired them.

But if the deer was running normally or the pigeons were flying, and he said, “My field acquires for me”, he has said nothing.

Something found by a man’s minor son or daughter, his Canaanite slave or maid, or something found by his wife belongs to him.

Something found by his adult son or daughter, or his Hebrew slave or female slave, or something found by his divorced wife, even if he has not yet given her her ketubah, belongs to them.

If someone found documentation of a debt he should not return them if it recorded a mortgage.

If it did not record a mortgage he may return it, since the court would not enforce from them, according to Rabbi Meir.

But the Sages say: “In either case he should not return them, since the court would enforce from them.”

לא יחזיר – for we are suspicious of collection and conspiracy to fraud and divide the profits. Lest it was a collected/paid off document and it fell from the borrower, and when he admits: “I did not pay,” there is a council of deception between them to seize the sold mortgaged property which cannot be resorted to (in the event of non-payment) and it will be divided between them.

If someone found bills of divorce, or writs of emancipation or wills, or deeds of gifts, or receipts, he should not return them, for I might say, “they were written out, and he might have changed his mind.”

If a man found letters of evaluation, or letters of maintenance, or documents of halitzah or refusal, or documents of arbitration or any document of the court, he should return them

If he found documents in a satchel or bag, or a bundle of documents, he should return them.

And how many are a "bundle" of documents? Three tied up together.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if one borrowed from three, he should return them to the borrower. But if three borrowed from one, he should return them to the lender.

If someone found a document among his documents and does not know what is its nature, it must be left until Elijah comes.

If there were simfonot [postscripts, codicils, or notes of cancellation] with them, he should do what is stated in their simfonot.

Anything which cancels something is called its simfon, . . . . and Tosafot wrote that in the hand of the lender it is called a simfon and in the hand of the borrower it is called a receipt.

If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely return it to him.

Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep driven away, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt return them to thy brother.

And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, and thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thy house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seeks it, and thou shalt return it to him.

And so shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his garment; and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found; thou mayest not hide thyself.

UNTIL THY BROTHER SEEKS — But would it ever enter your mind that one could give it back before he seeks it?! Rather, thou shalt seek out information from him so that he should not be a fraudulent claimant. (Bava Metzia 27b. 28a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 223:4).

These finds belong to him and these must be announced.

These belong to him: someone found scattered fruit, scattered money, small sheaves in the public domain, cakes of figs, bakers’ loaves, strings of fish, pieces of meat, wool shearings from their country, stalks of flax and strips of purple wool, these are his.

Rabbi Judah says: “Anything which has an alteration, must be announced". How so?

Someone who found a cake with a potsherd in it or a loaf with coins in it.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: “Anpuria gear need not be announced.”

Anpuria. New gear that isn't familiar looking, and the owner hasn't gotten used to how they look. This is because sometimes lost items are returned just from recognizing them, for example to a scholar who doesn't lie. These items that are known that their owner's haven't become used to how they look aren't obligated to be announced. The halacha is like Rabbi Shimon son of Elazar.

When? When you find them one by one. However, if you find them two by two, you are obligated to announce, since their number is a marker. Someone who finds something in the street, or a large plaza in a city that has a non-Jewish majority, even if it [the item] has a marker, there is no obligation to announce.

And in a city with a Jewish majority, there is an obligation to announce.

And these must be announced: someone found fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel; or money in a bag, or an empty bag; piles of fruit or piles of money; three coins one on top of the other; small sheaves in the private domain; home-made loaves of bread; wool shearings as they come from the craftsman’s shop; jugs of wine or jugs of oil, these must be announced.

Someone who found pigeons tied together behind a wall or a fence or on footpaths in the fields may not touch them.

If he found something in a dungheap and it was covered over he may not touch it, but if it was exposed he should take and announce.

If he found in a pile of stones or in an old wall it belongs to him.

If he found it in a new wall in the outer half it belongs to him; in the inner half it belongs to the householder.

If he had hired it out to others, even if a someone found something within the house it belongs to him.

If he found in a shop, it belongs to him.

Between the counter and the shopkeeper, it belongs to the shopkeeper.

In front of the money-changer, it belongs to him.

Between the stool and the money-changer, it belongs to the money-changer.

If a someone bought fruit from his friend or if his friend sent him fruit, and he found coins among them, they belong to him.

If they were tied up he takes and announces.

A garment was also included in all these things (Deut. 22:3). Why was it picked out?

To compare to it: just as a garment is unique in that it has marks and it has those who claim it, so too everything that has marks and has those who claim it must be announced.

For how long must someone announce? Until all of his neighbours know of it, according to Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says: “For three festivals, and for seven days after the last festival, to allow him three days to go home, three days to return, and one day on which to proclaim.”

Our sages taught: There was a Claimant’s Stone in Jerusalem, and anyone who lost an item would be directed there and anyone who found a lost item would be directed there.

One person would stand and proclaim and the other would stand and provide its distinguishing marks and take.

And that is the place about which we taught (Ta’anit 19a): Go and see if the Claimant’s Stone has been covered over.

“How long does one have to announce it?”.

It was taught: “In the beginning they used to announce for three festivals, and for seven days after the last festival, to allow him three days to go home, three days to return, and one day on which to proclaim.”

After the destruction of the Temple they instituted that one has to announce for three days.

After the danger they instituted that one has to inform his relatives and neighbours and this is enough.

. . . . . And after the Temple was destroyed they instituted that one should announce for 30 days . . .

It was taught: “In the beginning anyone who found a lost object used to announce for three festivals, and for seven days after the last festival, to allow him three days to go home, three days to return, and one day on which to proclaim.”

After the Temple was destroyed, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, they instituted that they should announce in synagogues and study halls. And after the oppressors proliferated, they instituted that one should inform one's neighbors and acquaintances, and this is enough.

(1) You shall not see your brother's ox or sheep gone astray and ignore them, you must return them to your brother.

(2) If your brother does not live near you and you do not know him, you shall bring it home and it shall remain with you until your brother inquires about it; then you shall

return it to him.

If he said what was lost but could not describe its marks, he should not give it to him.

He should not give to a fraudster even if he does describe its marks, as it is said, “Until your brother inquires about it”, that is to say until you inquire about your brother, whether he is a fraudster or not.

Whatsoever works and eats, let it work and eat. But whatsoever does not work and eat should be sold, as it is said (Deut. 22:2): “You shall return it to him”. See how you return it to him, what shall be with the money [from the sale]?

Rabbi Tarfon says: “He may use it, therefore if it is lost he is responsible for it.”

Rabbi Akiva says: “He may not use it, therefore if it is lost he is not responsible for it.”

If he found scrolls he must read them once every thirty days, and if he does not know how to read he should unroll them.

But he may not learn from them from the beginning, nor may another read with him.

If he found clothing he must shake it out once every thirty days, and spread it out for its own good, but not for his own honour.

Silver or copper vessels - he must use them for their own good but not so as to wear them out.

Vessels of gold or glass - he may not touch them until Elijah comes.

If he found a sack or a large basket or anything that is not generally carried about, he may not carry it.

לא תראה … והתעלמת YOU SHALT NOT SEE … AND IGNORE — “thou shalt not see it, that thou ignore from it”, this is the plain sense of the verse. Our Rabbis, however, said there are times when you may ignore (Sifrei Devarim 225:4).

What is lost property?

If he found an ass or a cow grazing on the path, this does not count as lost property.

An ass with its trappings turned over, or a cow running in the vineyards, this is lost property.

He returned it and it escaped again, and he returned it and it escaped again, even four or five times, he is still obligated to return it, since it is stated (Deut. 22:1): “You shall surely return them”.

If he lost a sela, he may not say to the owner, “Give me a sela”. Rather the owner need only pay him the wages of a labourer.

If there was a court of law in the that place the finder may argue before them.

If there was no court of law, before whom can he argue? His comes first.

If he found it in a stable, he is not obliged to take of it. If he found it in the public domain he is obliged to take care of it.

If it was in a cemetery he need not contract uncleanness because of it.

If his father said to him, “Contract uncleanness”, or if he said to him, “Do not return it”, he should not listen to him.

If he unloaded and reloaded, unloaded and reloaded, even four or five times, he is still obligated, for it is written (Exodus 23:5), “You must surely release with him”.

If the owner went and sat down and said, “The commandment is upon you, if you wish to unload, unload”, he is not obliged, for it is written “with him”. But if the owner was aged or sick, he is obliged.

It is a commandment from the Torah to unload but not to reload. Rabbi Shimon says, “To reload as well.”

Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, “If the beast was carrying more than its proper load he is not obliged, for it is written, “under its load”, a load which it is able to endure.

If thou see the ass of someone who hates you lying under its burden and you don't release it, you shall surely release with him.

But there shall be no destitute among you; for the Lord shall greatly bless thee in the land which the Lord thy God gives thee for an inheritance to possess it:

If a man found his own lost property and his father’s, his own takes priority.

His own and that of his teacher, his own takes priority.

If he found his father’s and his teacher’s, his teacher’s takes priority for his father brought him into the life of this world, but his teacher who taught him wisdom brings him into the life of the world to come.

If his father was weightier than his teacher, his father’s takes priority.

If his father and teacher each were carrying a load, he must first relieve his teacher and afterward relieve his father.

If his father and teacher were each taken captive, he must first ransom his teacher and afterward his father. But if his father was a sage, he must first ransom his father and afterward his teacher.

His lost item comes first. Since the verse says (Deuteronomy 15:4) "Nevertheless, there will be no destitute amongst you", you should be cautious that you don't become destitute.

Know that even if a person explained to him only a single matter from the Mishnah, he is called his teacher. However, he is not obligated to give him precedence or honor him more than his own father, as is mentioned regarding returning a lost object, redeeming a captive, and unloading a burden, unless he is his "distinguished teacher", meaning that most of his

wisdom comes from him.**

And the hint from the Torah that a person must give precedence to himself over others is what the Torah said: ‘Nevertheless, there shall be no destitute among you’ (Deut. 15:4).

It is as if the verse says: You are not obliged to remove harm from another unless doing so will not bring upon you a similar harm to the one you are removing from him.

For if you are in a situation where, by giving the needy person what he lacks, you would become poor like him, you are not obligated to give it. And this is what our Sages said: ‘Your own needs come before those of any other person.’”...

If a man deposits with his neighbour money or vessels to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, he shall pay double.

If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges, to swear that he has not put his hand to his neighbour’s goods.

Someone deposited an animal or utensils in his fellow’s keeping and they were stolen or lost, and his fellow paid and did not want to take an oath – for they have taught: "an unpaid guardian may take an oath and be exempt" – if the thief is found he must pay twice and if he slaughtered or sold he must pay four or five times.

To whom does he pay? To the person who had guarded the deposited object.

He took an oath and did not want to pay, if the thief is found he must pay twice and if he slaughtered or sold he must pay four or five times.

To whom does he pay? To the owner of the deposited object.

If a man delivers to his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or be driven away, no man seeing it: then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he has not put his hand to his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept this, and he shall not make it good.

But if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.

Someone who rented a cow from his fellow and lent it to another, and it died a natural death, must swear that it died a natural death and the borrower must pay the renter.

Rabbi Yose said: “How can this one make business out of that one's cow? Rather, it returns to the owner.”

Someone said to two, “I have robbed one of you of a maneh [100 zuz] and I do not know which of you it is”, or “The father of one of you deposited with me a maneh and I do not know whose father it was”, must give each of them a maneh, since he himself admitted liability.

When a person tells two others, "I robbed one of you" - or "...one of your fathers..." - "of a maneh, but I don't know whom., if he desires to fulfill his moral and spiritual obligation, he must pay the full amount of the robbery to each of the persons. The law, however, requires only that he give the value of the robbery, and they divide it among themselves.
The rationale is that neither of them knows that he has been robbed; it is the robber himself who is notifying them. Our Sages did not impose a penalty in this instance, because no one is lodging a claim.

Two deposited money with a third, one a maneh [100 zuz] and the other 200 zuz.

One says, "The 200 are mine" and the other says, "The 200 are mine".

He gives this one a maneh and this one a maneh and the rest remains until Elijah comes.

Rabbi Yose said: “If so, what does the deceiver lose? Rather, the whole is left until Elijah comes.”

If one gave him 100 and the other 200 in two purses and both claim that the 200 belong to them both should swear and he should give each of them 200, for he sinned in not writing down the names on the purses, and the halakha does not go according to Rabbi Yose.

Similarly, two vessels, one a maneh [100 zuz] and the other 1,000 zuz.

One says, "The more valuable one is mine" and the other says, "The more valuable one is mine".

He gives the less valuable one to one of them and from the value of the more valuable one he gives the value of the lesser one to the other person, and the rest remains until Elijah comes.

Rabbi Yose says: “If so, what does the deceiver lose? Rather, the whole is left until Elijah comes.”

When someone deposits produce with his fellow, even if it should perish he may not touch it.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “He may sell it before a court of law, since he is like someone who returns a lost object to its owners.”

אבודים – through mice or decay

לא יגע בהן – to see them since each person wants his Kab from the nine Kabim of his fellow. His Kab is beloved to him because he had toiled for it, from the nine Kabim of others that he would purchase with their monetary value if he would sell them.

When someone deposits produce with his fellow, he should return it with deductions.

For wheat and rice, nine half-kabs to the kor [2.5%, there are 180 kav in a kor].

For barley and durra nine kabs to the kor.

For spelt and linseed three seahs to the kor [10%]. All is in proportion to the quantity and according to the time [it is left].

Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri said: “But what do they care? The mice eat whether there is a lot or a little? Rather, he may exact a reduction from only one kor.

Rabbi Judah says: “If the quantity was great he may not exact any reduction, since the produce increases in bulk.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, why are they called nĕmūšōt, because they come at the end. Abba Shaul used to call them “gropers.” Some formulate in the Mishnah nĕmūšōt, some formulate mĕšūšōt. He who says nĕmūšōt, because they come at the end. Those who say mĕšūšōt, because they grope to come. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Menaḥem: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri used to go out with the second wave of seekers and returned with his needs for the entire year.

With wine he deducts one-sixth (17%). Rabbi Judah says one-fifth (20%).

With oil he deducts 3 logs in 100: 1 ½ logs for sediment and 1 ½ logs for absorption.

If the oil was refined he does not deduct for sediment.

If the jars were old he does not deduct for absorption.

Rabbi Judah says: “If someone sells to his fellow through the year, he accepts a reduction of 1 ½ logs for in 100 for sediment.

Someone a man left a jar [barrel?] with his fellow and the owners did not assign it a special place and he moved it and it broke: if it was broken while he was handling it then, if for his own sake he is liable but if for the sake of the jar, he is not liable.

But if it was broken after he had put it in place, whether he moved it for his own sake or for the sake of the jar, he is exempt.

If the owner had assigned it a special place, and the guardian moved it and it broke: Whether or not it broke while he was handling it or after he had put it in its place: if for his own sake he is liable, if for the sake of the jar, he is not liable.

Someone who left money in his fellow’s keeping and his fellow bound it up and hung it over his back, or delivered it to his son or his daughter who were minors, or locked it up improperly.

He is liable since he did not guard in the way of guardians.

If he guarded it in the way of guardians he is exempt.

If a man left coins with a money-changer: if they were tied up, he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost, he is not responsible.

If they were loose, he may use them. Therefore, ifthey were lost, he is responsible.

With a householder, whether they were loose or tied up, he may not use them. Therefore, if they were lost he is not responsible.

A shopkeeper is like a householder, according to Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says a shopkeeper is like a money-changer.

Tzerurin (‘tied up’) means that the coins are bound with an unusual knot, or that he has placed a seal on them. Anything other than this is called mutarin (‘loose’).

When the Mishnah says that the money‑changer is liable for them even if he did not use them, this is because once we permit him to use the coins, he becomes a paid guardian (shomer sakhar) over them. The laws of a paid guardian will be explained later.

But when he actually benefits from them and uses them, then even if they are lost through unavoidable circumstances, he is fully liable, because his obligation becomes like a debt upon him.

And the halakhah follows Rabbi Yehudah.

If a man shall deliver to his neighbour money or vessels to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, he shall pay double.

If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to the judges, to swear that he has not put his hand to his neighbour’s goods.

For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for a garment, or for any manner of lost thing, of which one can say, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double to his neighbour.

If someone puts their hand on a deposit: Beyt Shammai say he is charged for what is missing and what is added [when he gives it back].

Beyt Hillel say, "at the time at which he took it out" [from the owner's house, i.e. at the time of the deposit].

Rabbi Akiva says, "at the time when it is claimed".

Someone who expresses his intention to put their hand on a deposit: Beyt Shammai say he is liable and Bet Hillel say he is not liable until he touches it, as it says (Exodus 22:7): “If he had not put his hand onto his neighbor’s property”. How is this so? He tilted the jug and took a quarter-log of wine and the jug was then broken, he only pays the quarter-log.

If he lifted it and then took a quarter-log and the jug was then broken, he pays for the whole jug.

As it is written (Exodus 22:8): “For all manner of trespass" [davar] – from the time that he spoke to misappropriate, he is considered negligent.

Misappropriation does not make one liable for unavoidable accidents until he takes possession by drawing/seizing an object or lift it up which is acquisition.

When you sell something to your neighbor, or buy from your neighbour's hand, you shall not wrong one another.

Silver acquires gold, but gold does not acquire silver.

[Gold acquires silver, but silver does not acquire gold].

Copper acquires silver, but silver does not acquire copper.

Bad coins acquire good coins but good coins do not acquire bad coins.

A blank [unminted coin] acquires a minted coin, but a minted coin does not acquire a blank.

Movable property acquires coin, but coin does not acquire movable property.

This is the general rule: all types of movable property acquire each other.

How? He pulled the produce away from him but did not give him the money, he cannot retract.

He gave the money but did not pull the produce away from him, he may retract.

But they said: “He that punished the generation of the flood will punish someone who does not stand by his word.

Rabbi Shimon says: “He that has the money has the upper hand.”

HALAKHAH: “Silver acquires gold,” etc. This is a principle of the matter: Anything worth less that the other acquires the other.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said:

Who stated this? Rabbi Simeon ben Rebbi. His father told him, change your opinion and state like this: “Gold acquires silver.” He told him, I do not change my opinion since when you were strong you instructed me to state: “Silver acquires gold.”

The word of Rebbi implies that gold is like produce. The Mishnah implies that silver is like produce.

Price-gouging is an overcharge of 4 pieces of silver out of 24 pieces of silver, which make up a sela, 1/6 of the purchase.

Until what time is it permitted to retract? Enough to show to a merchant or to his relative.

Rabbi Tarfon taught in Lod: “Price-gouging is an overcharge of 8 pieces of silver to the seller, ⅓ of the purchase price”, and the merchants of Lod celebrated.

He said to them: “It is permitted to retract all day.” They said, “Let Rabbi Tarfon leave us as we were”, and they reverted to the teaching of the Sages.

When someone buys something which is worth six for five, or something which is worth six for seven, or something which is worth seven for six, all these are sixths and this is called "price-gouging".

There is no distinction between a sixth of money and a sixth in commerce and the buyer and the seller can equally retract on "price-gouging" except that except that the buyer can retract for as long as it takes to show the object to a merchant or to a kinsman whereas the seller can retract after many days. And this is the meaning of the expression “the seller can retract forever” for, because the object is not on his premises, he is not aware of its value until he happens to see something similar and to ascertain its value.

And the halakha does not go according to Rabbi Tarfon.

Price-gouging applies both to the buyer and the seller and, just as it applies to an ordinary person, it applies to a merchant.

Rabbi Judah said: “The law of price-gouging does not apply to the merchant.”

He who has been subjected to it has the upper hand: if he wants he may say to the other, “Give me back my money or give me back the amount you overcharged me.”