For it is fit

<<for children.

And this

<<that Rava said:

<<if

<<was

<<the garment

<<gilded,

<<they divide —

<<so too

<<that they divide

<<it?

<<But

<<they would ruin it!

<<This

<<is not a difficulty,

<<for it is fit

<<for the sons of

<<kings.

And this

<<that we learned:

<<if there were

<<two

<<riding

<<on

<<an animal,

<<etc. —

<<so too

<<that they divide

<<it?

<<But

<<they would ruin it!

<<Granted,

<<a pure animal

<<is fit

<<for meat;

<<but

<<an impure one —

<<they

<<would ruin it!

<<Rather,

<<for its value;

<<here

<<too

<<for its value.

Rami bar Chama said:

<<this is to say:

<<one who lifts

<<a found object

<<for his fellow

<<acquires

<<his fellow.

For if

<<it enters your mind

<<he does not

<<acquire,

<<his fellow,

<<let this become

<<this one

<<like one

<<that is lying

<<on

<<the ground,

<<and this one

<<like one

<<that is lying

<<on

<<the ground,

<<and shall not

<<acquire

<<neither

<<this one

<<nor

<<that one.

<<Rather,

<<is it not

<<learn from it:

<<one who lifts

<<a found object

<<for his fellow

<<acquires

<<his fellow.

Rava said:

<<actually

<<I could say

<<to you:

<<one who lifts

<<a found object

<<for his fellow

<<does not

<<acquire

<<his fellow;

<<and here

<<this is

<<the reason:

<<since

<<he acquires

<<for himself,

<<he acquires

<<also

<<for his fellow.

Know [this],

<<for if

<<one said

<<to his agent:

<<“go out

<<and steal

<<for me,”

<<and he stole —

<<he is exempt;

<<but partners

<<who stole

<<are liable.

<<What is the reason?

<<Is it not

<<because

<<we say:

<<since

<<he acquires

<<for himself,

<<he acquires

<<also

<<for his fellow.

<<Learn from it.

Rava said:

<<now

<<that you said

<<we say

<<“since”:

<<a deaf-mute

<<and a competent person

<<who lifted

<<a found object —

<<since

<<acquired

<<the deaf-mute,

<<acquired

<<the competent person.

Granted,

<<the deaf-mute

<<acquired,

<<for

<<lifts

<<for him

<<one of

<<understanding;

<<but

<<the competent person —

<<by what

<<did he acquire?

Rather,

<<say:

<<the deaf-mute

<<acquired,

<<the competent person

<<did not

<<acquire.

<<And what is

<<the “since”?

<<Since

<<that two

<<deaf-mutes

<<in general

<<acquire,

<<this one

<<too

<<acquires.

What is this?

<<If you say

<<one who lifts

<<a found object

<<for his fellow

<<acquires

<<his fellow.

<<this applies

<<where

<<he

<<lifts

<<it

<<with intent

<<for his fellow;

<<this one

<<with intent

<<for himself

<<lifts

<<it;

<<he himself

<<does not

<<acquire —

<<for others

<<shall he acquire?!

Rather,

<<say:

<<since

<<that did not

<<acquire

<<the competent person,

<<did not

<<acquire

<<the deaf-mute.

And if you say:

<<what is different

<<from two

<<deaf-mutes

<<in general?

<<There

<<enacted

<<for them

<<the Rabbis,

<<so that not

<<they come

<<to quarrel;

<<here

<<he says

<<to himself:

<<the competent person

<<does not

<<acquire —

<<shall I

<<acquire?

Rav Acha, son of Rav Adda said to Rav Ashi:

<<the inference

<<of Rami bar Chama

<<from where is it?

<<If

<<we say

<<from the first clause:

<<“two

<<who are holding

<<a garment” —

<<there

<<this one

<<says:

<<“all of it

<<is mine

<<and I

<<lifted it

<<entirely,”

<<and this one

<<says:

<<“all of it

<<is mine

<<and I

<<lifted it

<<entirely.”

Rather,

<<from this

<<that it teaches:

<<“this one

<<says

<<all of it

<<is mine

<<and that one

<<says

<<all of it

<<is mine” —

<<this

<<further

<<why do I need?

<<Rather,

<<from the Mishnah's

<<extra wording

<<learn from it:

<<one who lifts

<<a found object

<<for his fellow

<<acquires

<<his fellow.

But

<<we established

<<the first clause

<<as a found object

<<and the latter clause

<<as buying

<<and selling!

Rather,

<<from the latter clause:

<<“this one

<<says

<<all of it

<<is mine

<<and that one

<<says

<<half of it

<<is mine” —

<<this

<<further

<<why do I need?

<<Rather,

<<from the Mishnah's

<<extra wording

<<learn from it:

<<one who lifts

<<a found object

<<for his fellow

<<acquires

<<his fellow.

And from where

<<that it is about a found object?

<<Perhaps

<<about buying

<<and selling?

And if you say:

<<if

<<about buying

<<and selling,

<<what is

<<there to say?

<<It was necessary:

<<it might enter your mind to say

<<this one

<<who says

<<“half of it

<<is mine”

<<should be

<<like one returning

<<a lost object

<<and be exempt;

<<it teaches us

<<that this one

<<a ruse

<<he is using.

<<He thinks:

<<if

<<I say

<<“all of it

<<is mine,”

<<I will have

<<to swear;

<<let me say

<<thus,

<<so that I be

<<like one returning

<<a lost object

<<and be exempt!

Rather,

<<from this:

<<if there were

<<two

<<riding

<<on

<<an animal —

<<this

<<further

<<why do I need?

<<Rather,

<<from the Mishnah's

<<extra wording

<<learn from it:

<<one who lifts

<<a found object

<<for his fellow

<<acquires

<<his fellow.

And perhaps

<<this

<<it teaches us,

<<that one riding

<<also

<<acquires!

Rather,

<<from the latter clause:

<<when

<<they

<<admit

<<or

<<that there are

<<for them

<<witnesses,

<<they divide

<<without

<<an oath.

<<With what?

<<If

<<about buying

<<and selling,

<<is it necessary

<<to say?!

<<Rather,

<<is it not

<<about a found object —

<<so learn

<<from it:

<<one who lifts

<<a found object

<<for his fellow

<<acquires

<<his fellow.

And Rava

<<could say to you:

<<since

<<he acquires

<<for himself,

<<he acquires

<<also

<<for his fellow.

“If there were

<<two

<<riding.”

<<Rav Yosef said:

<<said

<<to me

<<Rav Yehuda: