Why does Baba Metzia follow Baba Kamma? TB Baba Metzia 2

Today we begin a brand-new massekhet, Baba Metzia. This massekhet is rich with many different laws and basically follows the order of the miztvot in parashat Mispatim in the book of Exodus  and parashat Ki Tetze in the book of Deuteronomy. The verses in the Torah present general rules while the mishnayot will present case studies.   Much of the massekhet deals with various doubts about ownership.

The massekhet on daf 2 begins: “MISHNA: If two people came to court holding a garment, and this one, the first litigant, says: I found it, and that one, the second litigant, says: I found it; this one says: All of it is mine, and that one says: All of it is mine; how does the court adjudicate this case? This one takes an oath that he does not have ownership of less than half of it, and that one takes an oath that he does not have ownership of less than half of it, and they divide it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Rishonim want to know why Baba Metzia immediately follows Baba Kamma. Tosefot ד"ה וְיַחְלוֹקוּ says that Baba Metzia concludes with cases determining the division of things. For example, does the carpenter gets the shavings after he has planed a beam or does the owner of the beam get them? Are they divided? And that’s the very first case in our Mishna. How this cloak divided is.

 

Rambam in his introduction to his commentary on the Mishna at the beginning of Seder Zera’im says that Baba Kamma deals with damages caused at the hands of human beings and now Baba Metzia deals with strictly monetary cases.

Tosefot HaRosh explains that Baba Kamma ends with theft and Baba Metzia begins with the case of theft. Two people grabbing on to that one cloak at the very exact time is highly improbable. One of them must be lying and trying to steal the cloak from the other.

The Rosh makes one more very interesting comment. Why doesn’t the mitzvah of returning lost objects (hasayvat avayda- הַשֵׁבַת אָבֵידָה) apply to our Mishna. He explains that the lost cloak must have been found in a city where the pagans are in the majority. The original Jewish owner will despair of ever finding it because he will assume that a pagan founded and will keep it because the pagan is not obligated to observe the mitzvah of returning lost objects. Consequently, the cloak is now ownerless.

The Jew who picks up this lost cloak in a city where the pagans are in the majority will assume that a pagan lost it. We previously learned in Baba Kamma that although Jews are forbidden to rob, cheat, or steal from a non-Jew, the laws of returning lost objects don’t apply to them (even though the rabbis encouraged Jews to go above and beyond the letter of the law and return lost objects). Consequently, the Jew who picked up the lost cloak felt no need to return it to the presumed pagan owner.