Study Bava Metzia folio 10A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מתניתין מני – רבנן היא. אלא אי אמרת בעשיר ועני מחלוקת, אבל מעני לעני דברי הכל זכה לו, הא מני? לא רבנן ולא רבי אליעזר!
whose opinion is expressed in the Mishnah? It is the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one cannot acquire an item for another in this manner. But if you say that the dispute is specifically in a case of a rich person and a poor person but in a case where the pe’a was gleaned by a poor person on behalf of a poor person everyone agrees that he acquired it on the latter’s behalf, in accordance with whose opinion is this Mishnah? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis nor in accordance with the opinion of R' Eliezer.
אמר ליה, מתניתין דאמר תחילה.
Ulla said to Rav Naḥman: The Mishnah is referring to a case where the one lifting the item said: I intended to acquire the item for myself at the outset; I never had intention to acquire it on behalf of the rider.
הכי נמי מסתברא, דקתני סיפא: אם משנתנה לו אמר אני זכיתי בה תחילה – לא אמר כלום. תחילה בסיפא למה לי? פשיטא, אף על גב דלא אמר תחילה, תחילה קאמר. אלא לאו הא קא משמע לן, רישא דאמר ״תחילה״.
The Talmud adds: So too, it is reasonable to explain the Mishnah in this manner, as it teaches in the last clause: But if, after giving it to the one riding the animal he said: I acquired it for myself at the outset, he has said nothing and the rider keeps the item. Why do I need the phrase: At the outset, to be mentioned in the last clause? It is obvious that even if he did not explicitly say: At the outset, he meant that he acquired it at the outset, before he gave it to the rider. Rather, isn’t this phrase mentioned to teach us this: The first clause of the Mishnah is also referring a case where he said: I intended to acquire it for myself at the outset?