our Mishnah —

<<whose is it?

<<The Rabbis'

<<it is.

<<But

<<if

<<you say

<<regarding a rich man

<<and a poor man

<<is the dispute,

<<but

<<from a poor man

<<to a poor man

<<all agree

<<he acquired it

<<for him —

<<this

<<whose is it?

<<Not

<<the Rabbis'

<<and not

<<Rabbi Eliezer's!

He said to him:

<<our Mishnah

<<is where he said

<<“first”.

So too

<<it stands to reason,

<<for it teaches

<<in the latter clause:

<<if

<<after he gave it

<<to him

<<he said

<<“I

<<acquired

<<it

<<first” —

<<he has not

<<said

<<anything.

<<“First”

<<in the latter clause —

<<why do I need it?

<<It is obvious:

<<even though

<<he did not

<<say

<<“first”,

<<“first”

<<he is saying.

<<Rather,

<<is it not

<<this

<<that it teaches us:

<<the first clause

<<is where he said

<<“first”.

And the other:

<<he taught

<<the latter clause

<<to disclose

<<the first clause:

<<the latter clause

<<is where he said

<<“first”;

<<the first clause

<<is where he did not

<<say

<<“first”.

Rav Nachman

<<and Rav Chisda

<<both say:

<<one who lifts

<<a found object

<<for his fellow —

<<has not

<<acquired for

<<his fellow.

What is the reason?

<<He is

<<one who seizes

<<for a creditor

<<in a place

<<where he causes loss

<<to others,

<<and one who seizes

<<for a creditor

<<in a place

<<where he causes loss

<<to others

<<does not

<<acquire.

Objected

<<Rava

<<to Rav Nachman:

<<the find of a laborer

<<is his own.

In what case was this said?

<<At a time

<<when he said

<<to him —

<<the householder —

<<“weed

<<with me

<<today”,

<<“hoe

<<with me

<<today”.

<<But

<<if he said

<<to him

<<“do

<<with me

<<work

<<today” —

<<his find

<<belongs to

<<the householder

<<it is!

He said to him:

<<different is

<<a laborer,

<<for his hand

<<is like the hand of

<<the householder

<<it is.

But didn't Rav say:

<<a laborer

<<may

<<retract

<<from it

<<even

<<in the middle of

<<the day!

He said to him:

<<as long as

<<he has not

<<retracted

<<from it,

<<is like the hand of

<<the householder

<<it is.

<<When

<<he retracts

<<from it,

<<a reason

<<other

<<it is,

<<for it is written:

<<“For

<<to Me

<<the children of

<<Israel

<<are servants,

<<My servants

<<they are” —

<<and not

<<servants

<<to servants.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan:

<<one who lifts

<<a found object

<<for his fellow —

<<has acquired for

<<his fellow.

<<And if

<<you say

<<our Mishnah —

<<that is where he said

<<“Give it

<<to me”,

<<and he did not

<<say

<<“acquire it

<<for me”.

MISHNAH:

<<If he saw

<<the found object

<<and fell

<<upon it,

<<and came

<<another

<<and took hold

<<of it —

<<this one

<<who took hold

<<of it

<<has acquired

<<it.

GEMARA:

<<Reish Lakish said in the name of Abba Kohen Bardela:

<<the four cubits

<<of

<<a person

<<acquire

<<for him

<<in every

<<place.

<<What is the reason?

<<they instituted it

<<the Rabbis,

<<so that they would not

<<(come)

<<[come]

<<to quarrel.

<<Abaye said:

<<objects

<<Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef

<<from pe'ah.

<<Rava said:

<<objects

<<Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi

<<from Nezikin.

Abaye said:

<<objects

<<Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef

<<from pe'ah:

<<if he took

<<part of

<<the pe'ah

<<and threw it

<<upon

<<the rest —

<<he has no claim

<<to it

<<at all.

<<If he fell

<<upon it,

<<or spread

<<his cloak

<<over it —

<<they remove

<<him

<<from it.

<<And so too

<<with a sheaf of

<<forgotten produce.

And if

<<you say

<<the four cubits

<<of

<<a person

<<acquire

<<for him

<<in every

<<place,

<<let them be acquired

<<for him —

<<the four cubits

<<that are his!

Here with what are we dealing?

<<Where he did not

<<say

<<“let me acquire”.

And if

<<instituted

<<the Rabbis —

<<when

<<he did not

<<say —

<<what

<<is it?!

Since

<<he fell,

<<he revealed

<<his intent

<<that by falling

<<he is content

<<to acquire;

<<by the four

<<cubits

<<he is not

<<content

<<to acquire.