Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

March 11, 2024 | 讗壮 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Bava Metzia 12

This month’s learning is sponsored in loving memory of Shay Uriel ben Carmit & Harav Shimon Pizam and Ayal Mevorach ben Shiri Chaya & Mordechai Moti Twito.

This week’s learning is sponsored by Nira Feldman in loving memory of Faye Darack z”l, Finkel bat Baruch v’Dina in commemoration of her first yahrzeit.聽

Rav Ashi explains why if a husband puts a bill of divorce in his wife’s courtyard, it is only effective if she is standing nearby, whereas, for a gift, there is no need to be standing near the courtyard. This is based on the principle that one can do something that is in a person’s best interest (gift) not in their presence but one cannot do something bad for another (divorce) not in their presence. Rava asks about a case where someone throws a wallet and it goes through the airspace of another’s property – is it acquired by the owner of the property as in the case of the Mishna? How is the case different from the case brought in the Mishna? The next Mishna teaches: If the following people find a lost item, the item goes to the father/husband/owner: a young child, a wife, and a Caananite slave. If the following people find a lost item, they can keep it for themselves: an older child, a Jewish slave, and a divorced woman even if she did not receive her ketuba. Shmuel explains that a child who finds a lost item goes to his/her father as it is common for children to give items they find to their parents. This implies that Shmuel holds that a child does not acquire items by Torah law. A difficulty is raised against Shmuel from a braita regarding a worker who leaves sheaves that fall in the field (leket) and his child can collect them. The sages suggest three possible resolutions. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Shmuel as he understands the word “minor” in the Mishna not to be referring to a minor as one underage but one who is supported by his father, in which case the Mishna teaches nothing regarding the ability of a minor to acquire items. A braita states that a day worker who is hired to do everything for the owner and finds a lost item on the job, the item goes to the one who hired him. This contradicts the Mishna which states that a Jewish slave who finds lost items can keep them. The sages suggest three solutions. What is the case of a Jewish slave woman in the Mishna who gets to keep lost items – shouldn’t they go to her father, and if he died, didn’t Reish Lakish teach that she go free? To resolve this, they explain that the Mishna means the item goes to her father, not her master. Why does the Mishna need to teach that a divorced woman can keep items she finds? Isn’t this obvious?! The case must be one where there is a doubt about whether or not she is divorced. If one finds promissory notes, are they returned to the creditor? On what does it depend? Why?

讞爪专 讗讬转专讘讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讬讚 讜诇讗 讙专注讛 诪砖诇讬讞讜转 讙讘讬 讙讟 讚讞讜讘 讛讜讗 诇讛 讗讬谉 讞讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讙讘讬 诪转谞讛 讚讝讻讜转 讛讜讗 诇讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜


One鈥檚 courtyard is included as a valid means of acquisition due to the fact that it acts as his hand; but it is no less effective than agency. Therefore, with regard to a bill of divorce, which is considered detrimental to the wife, one cannot transfer it to her by placing it in her courtyard in her absence, as one cannot act against the interests of a person unless it is in his presence. By contrast, with regard to a gift, which is beneficial for the recipient, one can give it to him by placing it in his courtyard in the recipient鈥檚 absence, as one can act in a person鈥檚 interest in his absence.


讙讜驻讗 专讗讛 讗讜转谉 专爪讬谉 讗讞专 讛诪爪讬讗讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖专抓 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜诪讙讬注谉 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 讛讬讗讱 拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专抓 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讙讬注谉


搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself. The mishna teaches: If one saw people running after a found ownerless animal, and said: My field has effected acquisition of this animal for me, it has effected acquisition of it for him. Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And this halakha is true only in a case where he would be able to run after them and catch them. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Does one acquire animals that are given to him as a gift in such a scenario? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana accepted the premise of the dilemma of Rabbi Yirmeya, and ruled that in the case of a gift one acquires the animals even if he would not be able to run after them and catch them.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讝专拽 讗专谞拽讬 讘驻转讞 讝讛 讜讬爪讗 讘驻转讞 讗讞专 诪讛讜 讗讜讬专 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻讜 诇谞讜讞 讻诪讜谞讞 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗


Rava raises a dilemma: If one threw a purse through this entrance of a house and it went through the house and exited through another entrance, what is the halakha? Does the owner of the house acquire the purse during the course of its flight? The dilemma is: Is an item in the airspace [avir] of a courtyard that will not eventually come to rest in the courtyard itself regarded as though it has come to rest, or is it not regarded as though it has come to rest?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讗讛 讗讜转谉 专爪讬谉 讗讞专 讛诪爪讬讗讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖专抓 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜诪讙讬注谉 讜讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 讛讬讗讱 讜拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讘诪转谞讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专抓 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讙讬注谉


Rav Pappa said to Rava, and some say that it was Rav Adda bar Mattana who said this to Rava, and some say that it was Ravina who said this to Rava: Isn鈥檛 this the same as the halakha in the mishna? As it is stated: If one saw people running after a found ownerless animal, and said: My field has effected acquisition of this animal for me, it has effected acquisition of it for him. And Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And this halakha is true only in a case where he would be able to run after them and catch them. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Does one acquire animals that are given to him as a gift in such a scenario? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana accepted the premise of the dilemma of Rabbi Yirmeya, and ruled that in the case of a gift one acquires the animals even if he would not be able to run after them and catch them.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转讙诇讙诇 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 诪转讙诇讙诇 讚讻诪讜谞讞 讚诪讬


Rava said to him: Are you saying that a purse flying through the air is comparable to an item that is rolling, i.e., moving on the ground? A rolling item is different, as it is regarded as though it has come to rest. At any given instant throughout its movement, the item rests on the ground. Therefore, the dilemma cannot be resolved from the mishna.


诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讬讗转 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 诪爪讬讗转 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖转讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪爪讬讗转 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 诪爪讬讗转 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖转讜 砖讙讬专砖讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讛谉


MISHNA: With regard to the found item of one鈥檚 minor son or daughter, i.e., an ownerless item that they found; the found item of his Canaanite slave or maidservant; and the found item of his wife, they are his. By contrast, with regard to the found item of one鈥檚 adult son or daughter; the found item of his Hebrew slave or maidservant; and the found item of his ex-wife, whom he divorced, even if he has not yet given her payment of the marriage contract that he owes her, they are theirs.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诪爪讬讗转 拽讟谉 诇讗讘讬讜 砖讘砖注讛 砖诪讜爪讗讛 诪专讬爪讛 讗爪诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讗讞专 讘讬讚讜


GEMARA: Shmuel says: For what reason did the Sages say that the found item of one鈥檚 minor son or daughter belongs to his father? It is because the minor does not intend to acquire it for himself, as when he finds it, he runs with it to his father and does not retain it in his possession.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽讟谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讝讻讬讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 讬诇拽讟 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诇诪讞爪讛 诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注 诇讗 讬诇拽讟 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬诇拽讟 讘谞讜 讜讗砖转讜 讗讞专讬讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Shmuel holds that a minor does not have the capability of acquiring property for himself by Torah law? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who hires a salaried laborer to harvest his field, the son of the laborer may glean fallen stalks from behind the laborer like all poor people who have a right to the stalks left in the field. But if one hires a laborer as a sharecropper, whether the laborer receives one-half, one-third, or one-quarter of the produce, his son may not glean stalks after him, as the laborer himself is considered a partial owner of the field and is consequently not considered poor. Rabbi Yosei says: In both this case and that case the laborer鈥檚 son and wife may glean after him. And Shmuel says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.


讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 拽讟谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讻讬讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪诇拽讟 诇谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪诇拽讟 讜讗讘讜讛 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 讝讻讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 拽讟谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讝讻讬讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪诇拽讟 诇讗讘讬讜 拽讗 诪诇拽讟 讗讘讜讛 注砖讬专 讛讜讗 讗诪讗讬 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讜 诪诇拽讟 讗讞专讬讜


Granted, if you say that a minor has the capability of acquiring property for himself, Shmuel鈥檚 opinion is understood, as when the son gleans stalks, he gleans them for himself and acquires them, and his father subsequently acquires them from him as a gift. Since the minor has no property of his own, his status is that of a poor person and it is permitted for him to glean stalks. But if you say that a minor does not have the capability of acquiring property for himself, then when he gleans the stalks, he gleans them for his father. Since his father is considered wealthy and is not entitled to the gleanings because he owns a portion of the produce, why may his wife and son glean stalks after him?


砖诪讜讗诇 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara answers: In Shmuel鈥檚 explanation, Shmuel is stating the reason of the tanna of our mishna, but he himself does not hold accordingly. Rather, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a minor can acquire property for himself.


讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽讟谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讻讬讬讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讛转谞谉 诪爪讬讗转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专


The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that a minor has the capability of acquiring property by Torah law? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Gittin 59b): With regard to the found items of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, i.e., lost items that they found, although they are not considered to be halakhically competent and are unable to acquire found items by Torah law, taking such items from them is considered robbery, by rabbinic law, for the sake of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专 诪讚讘专讬讛谉 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉


And Rav 岣sda says that Rabbi Yosei means that it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law. And the practical difference between the opinion of the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion is that according to Rabbi Yosei, if the robber refuses to return the stolen item, it is appropriated by the judges and returned to its owner. In any event, it is evident from here that Rabbi Yosei also holds that a minor cannot acquire property for himself by Torah law.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 注砖讗讜讛 讻诪讬 砖讛诇讻讜 讘讛 谞诪讜砖讜转 讚注谞讬讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诪住讞讬 讚注转讬讬讛讜 住讘专讬 讘专讬讛 讚讛讬讗讱 诪诇拽讟讬 诇讬讛


Rather, Abaye rejected the above explanation of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion in the baraita with regard to gleaning, and said: The reason that according to Rabbi Yosei a sharecropper鈥檚 son may glean after him despite the fact that he does not acquire property by Torah law is that in such a case the Sages rendered the field like one through which the last gleaners have walked. Once the poor people have finished gleaning stalks from a field, even wealthy people are permitted to collect whatever remains. In this case, since the sharecropper鈥檚 son is walking behind him, the poor people themselves dismiss the notion of gleaning in this field from their minds; they assume that the son of this sharecropper is gleaning for him and that they will therefore not find any gleanings in this field. Since the poor people themselves have finished taking stalks from the field, the sharecropper鈥檚 son can glean for his father.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬 诪讜转专 诇讗讚诐 诇讛专讘讬抓 讗专讬 讘转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讜 注谞讬讬诐 讜讬讘专讞讜


Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Abaye: But how is it permitted for one to allow his son to follow him in the field, thereby causing all the poor people to leave? Is a person permitted to have a lion crouch in his field so that the poor people will see it and flee?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗


Rather, Rava stated an alternative explanation:


注砖讜 砖讗讬谞讜 讝讜讻讛 讻讝讜讻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注谞讬讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讻讬 讗讙专讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 谞诇拽讜讟 讘谞讬讬讛讜 讘转专讬讬讛讜


The Sages instituted an ordinance rendering a son of the sharecropper, who does not have the right to acquire property, like one who has the right to acquire property; i.e., they granted him a special right to acquire the gleanings. What is the reason for this ordinance? This arrangement is satisfactory for the poor people themselves, so that when they are hired under similar terms themselves, their sons will be able to glean the stalks after them.


讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇 诪诪砖 讜诇讗 拽讟谉 拽讟谉 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讙讚讜诇 讜住诪讜讱 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讗讘讬讜 讝讛讜 拽讟谉 拽讟谉 讜讗讬谞讜 住诪讜讱 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讗讘讬讜 讝讛讜 讙讚讜诇


The Gemara comments: And Shmuel, in his above explanation of the mishna, disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba. As Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The word adult in the mishna is not referring to an actual adult, and the word minor is not referring to an actual minor. Rather, with regard to an adult son who is dependent on the food of his father鈥檚 table for support, this is considered a minor in the context of the mishna. It is appropriate for one who is reliant on his father鈥檚 support to give items that he finds to his father. And with regard to a minor son who is not dependent on the food of his father鈥檚 table for support, this is considered an adult in this context, and any lost item that he finds is his.


诪爪讬讗转 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 注爪诪谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 驻讜注诇 讜转谞讬讗 诪爪讬讗转 驻讜注诇 诇注爪诪讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 谞讻砖 注诪讬 讛讬讜诐 注讚讜专 注诪讬 讛讬讜诐


搂 The mishna teaches: The found item of his Hebrew slave or maidservant, it is theirs. The Gemara asks: Why does it not belong to the master? Let the slave be considered merely a laborer; and it is taught in a baraita: The found item of a laborer, i.e., a lost item that he found, belongs to him and not to his employer. In what case is this statement, that the item belongs to the laborer, said? It is said when the employer told the laborer to perform a specific task, e.g., he said to him: Weed for me today, or: Till for me today. Since the employer specified the task that he hired the laborer to perform, and that task did not include finding lost items, the laborer has rights to the item that he himself found.


讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讜 注砖讛 注诪讬 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬讜诐 诪爪讬讗转讜 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转


The baraita continues: But if the employer said to the laborer: Work for me today, without specifying the nature of the work, the found item is the employer鈥檚, as finding ownerless items is included within the general category of work. Since a Hebrew slave is duty-bound to perform all types of labor for his master, why doesn鈥檛 his master acquire all items that he finds?


讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讗 讘注讘讚 谞讜拽讘 诪专讙诇讬讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讗讬谉 专讘讜 专讜爪讛 诇砖谞讜转讜 诇诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞专转


Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Here we are dealing with a slave who pierces pearls [margaliyyot], which is such a profitable activity that his master would not want to transfer him to another line of work even for a moment. Therefore his status is like that of a laborer who is hired to perform a specific task.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诪讙讘讬讛 诪爪讬讗讛 注诐 诪诇讗讻转讜 注住拽讬谞谉


Rava said: We are dealing with a case where the slave lifts a found item along with performing his work. Since there is no need for him to interrupt his work in order to take the item, his taking the item costs his master nothing, so it belongs to the slave.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖砖讻专讜 诇诇拽讟 诪爪讬讗讜转 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗拽驻讬 讗讙诪讗 讘讻讜讜专讬


Rav Pappa said: An item found by a laborer belongs to his employer only in a case where he hired him specifically to collect found items. The Gemara asks: But what are the circumstances in which one would hire a person to find ownerless items? The Gemara answers: It is in a case where a lake flooded its shore with fish, and after the water receded, the fish remained on the shore. One would hire laborers to gather those fish.


讛讗讬 砖驻讞讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诪讗讬 讘注讬讗 讙讘讬讛


搂 The mishna teaches that an item found by a Hebrew maidservant belongs to her. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this maidservant? If the reference is to a maidservant who has grown two pubic hairs, which is a sign of adulthood, why is she with her master? A Hebrew maidservant who reaches adulthood is emancipated.


讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讗讬 讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讘 讚讗讘讜讛 讛讜讬讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇讗讘 转讬驻讜拽 讘诪讬转转 讛讗讘


And if she is a maidservant who has not yet grown two pubic hairs and is still considered a minor, then if her father is still alive, the found item is her father鈥檚, and if her father is not still alive, she should have gone free with the death of her father.


讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 拽谞讛 注爪诪讛 讘诪讬转转 讛讗讘 诪专砖讜转 讛讗讚讜谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诇讗讜 讗讬转讜转讘 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖


As Reish Lakish says: A Hebrew maidservant acquires herself from the authority of her master through the death of her father, and this halakha is derived from an a fortiori inference: Signs indicating puberty release her from her master鈥檚 authority but do not release her from her father鈥檚 authority, as although she shows signs indicating puberty she remains under her father鈥檚 authority with regard to certain matters. Therefore, is it not logical that her father鈥檚 death, which releases her entirely from the father鈥檚 authority, would release her from the authority of her master? Clearly, there is no situation where a Hebrew maidservant can acquire an item that she finds. The Gemara answers: But wasn鈥檛 the opinion of Reish Lakish conclusively refuted? It is not accepted as halakha.


谞讬诪讗 诪讛讗讬 谞诪讬 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that there is a conclusive refutation of his opinion from this mishna as well. If a Hebrew maidservant is emancipated once her father dies, there is no possible situation in which a Hebrew maidservant who finds an ownerless item acquires it for herself.


诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讘 讜诪讗讬 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇讛谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚专讘讛


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This mishna is not a refutation of Reish Lakish鈥檚 opinion, as perhaps it is actually referring to a case where the father is alive. And what is the meaning of the phrase: They are theirs? It does not mean that the item belongs to the maidservant; rather it is stated in order to exclude the possibility that it belongs to her master. The maidservant acquires the found item, and through her, her father acquires it.


诪爪讬讗转 讗砖转讜 讙讬专砖讛 驻砖讬讟讗


搂 The mishna teaches that the found item of his ex-wife, whom he divorced, belongs to her, even if he has not yet given her payment of the marriage contract that he owes her. The Gemara asks: If he divorced her, it is obvious that the item is hers. Why does the mishna specify this?


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讘注诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛


The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced. As Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: Everywhere that the Sages said that there is uncertainty whether a woman is divorced or whether she is not divorced, her husband remains obligated to provide for her sustenance. Furthermore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that an item found by a wife belongs to her husband, and that this right is reciprocal to his obligation to provide for her sustenance. Therefore, one might reason that here too, since the husband is still obligated to provide for his wife he retains the right to items that she finds.


讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖讛 诇讘注诇讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讛 讗讬讘讛 讛讻讗 讗讬转 诇讛 讗讬讘讛 讜讗讬讘讛


But this is not the halakha, as what is the reason that the Sages said that an item found by a wife belongs to her husband? It is so that she should not be subject to her husband鈥檚 enmity due to the fact that he is supporting her and yet she keeps any item that she finds. Here, however, let her be subject to much enmity. He should resolve the uncertainty and finalize the divorce as soon as possible, and perhaps this enmity will facilitate reaching that goal.


诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讬讞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


MISHNA: With regard to one who found promissory notes, if they include a property guarantee for the loan he may not return them to the creditor, as, if he were to return them, the court would then use them to collect repayment of the debts from land that belonged to the debtor at the time of the loan, even if that land was subsequently sold to others. If they do not include a property guarantee, he returns them to the creditor, as in this case the court will not use them to collect repayment of the debt from purchasers of the debtor鈥檚 land. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉


And the Rabbis say: In both this case and that case he should not return the promissory notes to the creditor, as, if he were to return them, the court would in any event use them to collect repayment of the loan from purchasers of the debtor鈥檚 land.


讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讻讬 讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讛讗 诪讜讚讛 讜讗讬 讻砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讻讬 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讬讞讝讬专 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讙讘讬 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬 诪讙讘讗 讙讘讬


GEMARA: With what case are we dealing? If we say it is a case when the liable party, i.e., the debtor, admits that he wrote the promissory notes and that the debts have not yet been repaid, then when the promissory notes include a property guarantee, why should the finder not return them to the creditor? Doesn鈥檛 the debtor admit to the debts? And if it is in a case when the debtor does not admit to the debts, claiming that he dropped the promissory notes after he repaid his debts, then even when the promissory notes do not include a property guarantee, why should the finder return them to the creditor? Granted, the creditor cannot collect these debts from liened property that has been sold, but he can collect from unsold property. The returning of the promissory note would be disadvantageous to the borrower, who claims that he repaid the loan.


诇注讜诇诐 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇诇讜转 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗转讬 诇诪讟专祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉


The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is referring to a case when the liable party admits to the debts, and here, this is the reason that the finder may not return the promissory notes: It is that we are concerned that perhaps the debtor wrote in the promissory note that he would borrow the money in Nisan but he did not actually borrow the money until Tishrei, and between Nisan and Tishrei he sold land. These lands are not liened to the debt, as the liability to repay the loan took effect only when he actually borrowed the money. And the creditor will come to repossess the land that was sold between Nisan and Tishrei from the purchasers, unlawfully.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 砖讟专讬 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪谉 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛讜 讛讻讬


The Gemara asks: If so, if the court must be concerned that the date on a promissory note predates the actual loan, we should likewise be concerned that all promissory notes that come before us to the court are perhaps predated.


讻诇 砖讟专讬 诇讗 专讬注讬 讛谞讬 专讬注讬


The Gemara answers: The credibility of all promissory notes in general has not been compromised, as they remain in the creditor鈥檚 possession, which is the correct location in the case of an outstanding loan. The credibility of these promissory notes has been compromised by the fact that they were lost.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 诇诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪诇讜讛 注诪讜 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讛讬讻讬 讻转讘讬谞讛讜 谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇诇讜转 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗转讬 诇诪讟专祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉


The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 167b): One may write a promissory note for a borrower even if the lender is not with him because it is the borrower who assumes liability based on the note, the question arises: How can one write this promissory note ab initio? Let us be concerned that perhaps the borrower wants to write the note as he intends to borrow money in Nisan, but will ultimately not borrow the money until Tishrei, and the lender might then come to repossess the land that the borrower sells between Nisan and Tishrei from the purchasers, unlawfully.


讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬


Rav Asi said:


  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

din & daf elana stein hain thumbnail

Din & Daf: Acting in Someone Else鈥檚 Interest without their Knowledge

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain Acting in Someone Else鈥檚 Interest...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Metzia – 8-14: Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue discussing various cases of found objects and how one can acquire them. If someone asks...
talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 12: Household Acquisition

Two mishnahs on this daf. The first deals with children, slaves, and one鈥檚 wife finding an ownerless object and to...

Bava Metzia 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 12

讞爪专 讗讬转专讘讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讬讚 讜诇讗 讙专注讛 诪砖诇讬讞讜转 讙讘讬 讙讟 讚讞讜讘 讛讜讗 诇讛 讗讬谉 讞讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讙讘讬 诪转谞讛 讚讝讻讜转 讛讜讗 诇讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜


One鈥檚 courtyard is included as a valid means of acquisition due to the fact that it acts as his hand; but it is no less effective than agency. Therefore, with regard to a bill of divorce, which is considered detrimental to the wife, one cannot transfer it to her by placing it in her courtyard in her absence, as one cannot act against the interests of a person unless it is in his presence. By contrast, with regard to a gift, which is beneficial for the recipient, one can give it to him by placing it in his courtyard in the recipient鈥檚 absence, as one can act in a person鈥檚 interest in his absence.


讙讜驻讗 专讗讛 讗讜转谉 专爪讬谉 讗讞专 讛诪爪讬讗讛 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖专抓 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜诪讙讬注谉 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 讛讬讗讱 拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专抓 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讙讬注谉


搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself. The mishna teaches: If one saw people running after a found ownerless animal, and said: My field has effected acquisition of this animal for me, it has effected acquisition of it for him. Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And this halakha is true only in a case where he would be able to run after them and catch them. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Does one acquire animals that are given to him as a gift in such a scenario? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana accepted the premise of the dilemma of Rabbi Yirmeya, and ruled that in the case of a gift one acquires the animals even if he would not be able to run after them and catch them.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讝专拽 讗专谞拽讬 讘驻转讞 讝讛 讜讬爪讗 讘驻转讞 讗讞专 诪讛讜 讗讜讬专 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻讜 诇谞讜讞 讻诪讜谞讞 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗


Rava raises a dilemma: If one threw a purse through this entrance of a house and it went through the house and exited through another entrance, what is the halakha? Does the owner of the house acquire the purse during the course of its flight? The dilemma is: Is an item in the airspace [avir] of a courtyard that will not eventually come to rest in the courtyard itself regarded as though it has come to rest, or is it not regarded as though it has come to rest?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讗讛 讗讜转谉 专爪讬谉 讗讞专 讛诪爪讬讗讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讜讗 砖专抓 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜诪讙讬注谉 讜讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 讛讬讗讱 讜拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讘诪转谞讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专抓 讗讞专讬讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讙讬注谉


Rav Pappa said to Rava, and some say that it was Rav Adda bar Mattana who said this to Rava, and some say that it was Ravina who said this to Rava: Isn鈥檛 this the same as the halakha in the mishna? As it is stated: If one saw people running after a found ownerless animal, and said: My field has effected acquisition of this animal for me, it has effected acquisition of it for him. And Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And this halakha is true only in a case where he would be able to run after them and catch them. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Does one acquire animals that are given to him as a gift in such a scenario? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana accepted the premise of the dilemma of Rabbi Yirmeya, and ruled that in the case of a gift one acquires the animals even if he would not be able to run after them and catch them.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转讙诇讙诇 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 诪转讙诇讙诇 讚讻诪讜谞讞 讚诪讬


Rava said to him: Are you saying that a purse flying through the air is comparable to an item that is rolling, i.e., moving on the ground? A rolling item is different, as it is regarded as though it has come to rest. At any given instant throughout its movement, the item rests on the ground. Therefore, the dilemma cannot be resolved from the mishna.


诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讬讗转 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 诪爪讬讗转 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖转讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪爪讬讗转 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 诪爪讬讗转 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖转讜 砖讙讬专砖讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讛谉


MISHNA: With regard to the found item of one鈥檚 minor son or daughter, i.e., an ownerless item that they found; the found item of his Canaanite slave or maidservant; and the found item of his wife, they are his. By contrast, with regard to the found item of one鈥檚 adult son or daughter; the found item of his Hebrew slave or maidservant; and the found item of his ex-wife, whom he divorced, even if he has not yet given her payment of the marriage contract that he owes her, they are theirs.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诪爪讬讗转 拽讟谉 诇讗讘讬讜 砖讘砖注讛 砖诪讜爪讗讛 诪专讬爪讛 讗爪诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讗讞专 讘讬讚讜


GEMARA: Shmuel says: For what reason did the Sages say that the found item of one鈥檚 minor son or daughter belongs to his father? It is because the minor does not intend to acquire it for himself, as when he finds it, he runs with it to his father and does not retain it in his possession.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽讟谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讝讻讬讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 讬诇拽讟 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诇诪讞爪讛 诇砖诇讬砖 讜诇专讘讬注 诇讗 讬诇拽讟 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬诇拽讟 讘谞讜 讜讗砖转讜 讗讞专讬讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Shmuel holds that a minor does not have the capability of acquiring property for himself by Torah law? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who hires a salaried laborer to harvest his field, the son of the laborer may glean fallen stalks from behind the laborer like all poor people who have a right to the stalks left in the field. But if one hires a laborer as a sharecropper, whether the laborer receives one-half, one-third, or one-quarter of the produce, his son may not glean stalks after him, as the laborer himself is considered a partial owner of the field and is consequently not considered poor. Rabbi Yosei says: In both this case and that case the laborer鈥檚 son and wife may glean after him. And Shmuel says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.


讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 拽讟谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讻讬讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪诇拽讟 诇谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪诇拽讟 讜讗讘讜讛 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 讝讻讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 拽讟谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讝讻讬讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 诪诇拽讟 诇讗讘讬讜 拽讗 诪诇拽讟 讗讘讜讛 注砖讬专 讛讜讗 讗诪讗讬 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讜 诪诇拽讟 讗讞专讬讜


Granted, if you say that a minor has the capability of acquiring property for himself, Shmuel鈥檚 opinion is understood, as when the son gleans stalks, he gleans them for himself and acquires them, and his father subsequently acquires them from him as a gift. Since the minor has no property of his own, his status is that of a poor person and it is permitted for him to glean stalks. But if you say that a minor does not have the capability of acquiring property for himself, then when he gleans the stalks, he gleans them for his father. Since his father is considered wealthy and is not entitled to the gleanings because he owns a portion of the produce, why may his wife and son glean stalks after him?


砖诪讜讗诇 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara answers: In Shmuel鈥檚 explanation, Shmuel is stating the reason of the tanna of our mishna, but he himself does not hold accordingly. Rather, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a minor can acquire property for himself.


讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽讟谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讝讻讬讬讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讛转谞谉 诪爪讬讗转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专


The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that a minor has the capability of acquiring property by Torah law? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Gittin 59b): With regard to the found items of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, i.e., lost items that they found, although they are not considered to be halakhically competent and are unable to acquire found items by Torah law, taking such items from them is considered robbery, by rabbinic law, for the sake of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专 诪讚讘专讬讛谉 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉


And Rav 岣sda says that Rabbi Yosei means that it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law. And the practical difference between the opinion of the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion is that according to Rabbi Yosei, if the robber refuses to return the stolen item, it is appropriated by the judges and returned to its owner. In any event, it is evident from here that Rabbi Yosei also holds that a minor cannot acquire property for himself by Torah law.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 注砖讗讜讛 讻诪讬 砖讛诇讻讜 讘讛 谞诪讜砖讜转 讚注谞讬讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诪住讞讬 讚注转讬讬讛讜 住讘专讬 讘专讬讛 讚讛讬讗讱 诪诇拽讟讬 诇讬讛


Rather, Abaye rejected the above explanation of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion in the baraita with regard to gleaning, and said: The reason that according to Rabbi Yosei a sharecropper鈥檚 son may glean after him despite the fact that he does not acquire property by Torah law is that in such a case the Sages rendered the field like one through which the last gleaners have walked. Once the poor people have finished gleaning stalks from a field, even wealthy people are permitted to collect whatever remains. In this case, since the sharecropper鈥檚 son is walking behind him, the poor people themselves dismiss the notion of gleaning in this field from their minds; they assume that the son of this sharecropper is gleaning for him and that they will therefore not find any gleanings in this field. Since the poor people themselves have finished taking stalks from the field, the sharecropper鈥檚 son can glean for his father.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬 诪讜转专 诇讗讚诐 诇讛专讘讬抓 讗专讬 讘转讜讱 砖讚讛讜 讻讚讬 砖讬专讗讜 注谞讬讬诐 讜讬讘专讞讜


Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Abaye: But how is it permitted for one to allow his son to follow him in the field, thereby causing all the poor people to leave? Is a person permitted to have a lion crouch in his field so that the poor people will see it and flee?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗


Rather, Rava stated an alternative explanation:


注砖讜 砖讗讬谞讜 讝讜讻讛 讻讝讜讻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注谞讬讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讻讬 讗讙专讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 谞诇拽讜讟 讘谞讬讬讛讜 讘转专讬讬讛讜


The Sages instituted an ordinance rendering a son of the sharecropper, who does not have the right to acquire property, like one who has the right to acquire property; i.e., they granted him a special right to acquire the gleanings. What is the reason for this ordinance? This arrangement is satisfactory for the poor people themselves, so that when they are hired under similar terms themselves, their sons will be able to glean the stalks after them.


讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇 诪诪砖 讜诇讗 拽讟谉 拽讟谉 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讙讚讜诇 讜住诪讜讱 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讗讘讬讜 讝讛讜 拽讟谉 拽讟谉 讜讗讬谞讜 住诪讜讱 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讗讘讬讜 讝讛讜 讙讚讜诇


The Gemara comments: And Shmuel, in his above explanation of the mishna, disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba. As Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The word adult in the mishna is not referring to an actual adult, and the word minor is not referring to an actual minor. Rather, with regard to an adult son who is dependent on the food of his father鈥檚 table for support, this is considered a minor in the context of the mishna. It is appropriate for one who is reliant on his father鈥檚 support to give items that he finds to his father. And with regard to a minor son who is not dependent on the food of his father鈥檚 table for support, this is considered an adult in this context, and any lost item that he finds is his.


诪爪讬讗转 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 注爪诪谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 驻讜注诇 讜转谞讬讗 诪爪讬讗转 驻讜注诇 诇注爪诪讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 谞讻砖 注诪讬 讛讬讜诐 注讚讜专 注诪讬 讛讬讜诐


搂 The mishna teaches: The found item of his Hebrew slave or maidservant, it is theirs. The Gemara asks: Why does it not belong to the master? Let the slave be considered merely a laborer; and it is taught in a baraita: The found item of a laborer, i.e., a lost item that he found, belongs to him and not to his employer. In what case is this statement, that the item belongs to the laborer, said? It is said when the employer told the laborer to perform a specific task, e.g., he said to him: Weed for me today, or: Till for me today. Since the employer specified the task that he hired the laborer to perform, and that task did not include finding lost items, the laborer has rights to the item that he himself found.


讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讜 注砖讛 注诪讬 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬讜诐 诪爪讬讗转讜 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转


The baraita continues: But if the employer said to the laborer: Work for me today, without specifying the nature of the work, the found item is the employer鈥檚, as finding ownerless items is included within the general category of work. Since a Hebrew slave is duty-bound to perform all types of labor for his master, why doesn鈥檛 his master acquire all items that he finds?


讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讗 讘注讘讚 谞讜拽讘 诪专讙诇讬讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讗讬谉 专讘讜 专讜爪讛 诇砖谞讜转讜 诇诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞专转


Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Here we are dealing with a slave who pierces pearls [margaliyyot], which is such a profitable activity that his master would not want to transfer him to another line of work even for a moment. Therefore his status is like that of a laborer who is hired to perform a specific task.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诪讙讘讬讛 诪爪讬讗讛 注诐 诪诇讗讻转讜 注住拽讬谞谉


Rava said: We are dealing with a case where the slave lifts a found item along with performing his work. Since there is no need for him to interrupt his work in order to take the item, his taking the item costs his master nothing, so it belongs to the slave.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖砖讻专讜 诇诇拽讟 诪爪讬讗讜转 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗拽驻讬 讗讙诪讗 讘讻讜讜专讬


Rav Pappa said: An item found by a laborer belongs to his employer only in a case where he hired him specifically to collect found items. The Gemara asks: But what are the circumstances in which one would hire a person to find ownerless items? The Gemara answers: It is in a case where a lake flooded its shore with fish, and after the water receded, the fish remained on the shore. One would hire laborers to gather those fish.


讛讗讬 砖驻讞讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 诪讗讬 讘注讬讗 讙讘讬讛


搂 The mishna teaches that an item found by a Hebrew maidservant belongs to her. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this maidservant? If the reference is to a maidservant who has grown two pubic hairs, which is a sign of adulthood, why is she with her master? A Hebrew maidservant who reaches adulthood is emancipated.


讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讬讬转讬 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讗讬 讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讘 讚讗讘讜讛 讛讜讬讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇讗讘 转讬驻讜拽 讘诪讬转转 讛讗讘


And if she is a maidservant who has not yet grown two pubic hairs and is still considered a minor, then if her father is still alive, the found item is her father鈥檚, and if her father is not still alive, she should have gone free with the death of her father.


讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 拽谞讛 注爪诪讛 讘诪讬转转 讛讗讘 诪专砖讜转 讛讗讚讜谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诇讗讜 讗讬转讜转讘 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖


As Reish Lakish says: A Hebrew maidservant acquires herself from the authority of her master through the death of her father, and this halakha is derived from an a fortiori inference: Signs indicating puberty release her from her master鈥檚 authority but do not release her from her father鈥檚 authority, as although she shows signs indicating puberty she remains under her father鈥檚 authority with regard to certain matters. Therefore, is it not logical that her father鈥檚 death, which releases her entirely from the father鈥檚 authority, would release her from the authority of her master? Clearly, there is no situation where a Hebrew maidservant can acquire an item that she finds. The Gemara answers: But wasn鈥檛 the opinion of Reish Lakish conclusively refuted? It is not accepted as halakha.


谞讬诪讗 诪讛讗讬 谞诪讬 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that there is a conclusive refutation of his opinion from this mishna as well. If a Hebrew maidservant is emancipated once her father dies, there is no possible situation in which a Hebrew maidservant who finds an ownerless item acquires it for herself.


诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讘 讜诪讗讬 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇讛谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚专讘讛


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This mishna is not a refutation of Reish Lakish鈥檚 opinion, as perhaps it is actually referring to a case where the father is alive. And what is the meaning of the phrase: They are theirs? It does not mean that the item belongs to the maidservant; rather it is stated in order to exclude the possibility that it belongs to her master. The maidservant acquires the found item, and through her, her father acquires it.


诪爪讬讗转 讗砖转讜 讙讬专砖讛 驻砖讬讟讗


搂 The mishna teaches that the found item of his ex-wife, whom he divorced, belongs to her, even if he has not yet given her payment of the marriage contract that he owes her. The Gemara asks: If he divorced her, it is obvious that the item is hers. Why does the mishna specify this?


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讘注诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛


The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced. As Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: Everywhere that the Sages said that there is uncertainty whether a woman is divorced or whether she is not divorced, her husband remains obligated to provide for her sustenance. Furthermore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that an item found by a wife belongs to her husband, and that this right is reciprocal to his obligation to provide for her sustenance. Therefore, one might reason that here too, since the husband is still obligated to provide for his wife he retains the right to items that she finds.


讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诪爪讬讗转 讗砖讛 诇讘注诇讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讛 讗讬讘讛 讛讻讗 讗讬转 诇讛 讗讬讘讛 讜讗讬讘讛


But this is not the halakha, as what is the reason that the Sages said that an item found by a wife belongs to her husband? It is so that she should not be subject to her husband鈥檚 enmity due to the fact that he is supporting her and yet she keeps any item that she finds. Here, however, let her be subject to much enmity. He should resolve the uncertainty and finalize the divorce as soon as possible, and perhaps this enmity will facilitate reaching that goal.


诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讬讞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


MISHNA: With regard to one who found promissory notes, if they include a property guarantee for the loan he may not return them to the creditor, as, if he were to return them, the court would then use them to collect repayment of the debts from land that belonged to the debtor at the time of the loan, even if that land was subsequently sold to others. If they do not include a property guarantee, he returns them to the creditor, as in this case the court will not use them to collect repayment of the debt from purchasers of the debtor鈥檚 land. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞驻专注讬谉 诪讛谉


And the Rabbis say: In both this case and that case he should not return the promissory notes to the creditor, as, if he were to return them, the court would in any event use them to collect repayment of the loan from purchasers of the debtor鈥檚 land.


讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讻讬 讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讛讗 诪讜讚讛 讜讗讬 讻砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讻讬 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讬讞讝讬专 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讙讘讬 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬 诪讙讘讗 讙讘讬


GEMARA: With what case are we dealing? If we say it is a case when the liable party, i.e., the debtor, admits that he wrote the promissory notes and that the debts have not yet been repaid, then when the promissory notes include a property guarantee, why should the finder not return them to the creditor? Doesn鈥檛 the debtor admit to the debts? And if it is in a case when the debtor does not admit to the debts, claiming that he dropped the promissory notes after he repaid his debts, then even when the promissory notes do not include a property guarantee, why should the finder return them to the creditor? Granted, the creditor cannot collect these debts from liened property that has been sold, but he can collect from unsold property. The returning of the promissory note would be disadvantageous to the borrower, who claims that he repaid the loan.


诇注讜诇诐 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇诇讜转 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗转讬 诇诪讟专祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉


The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is referring to a case when the liable party admits to the debts, and here, this is the reason that the finder may not return the promissory notes: It is that we are concerned that perhaps the debtor wrote in the promissory note that he would borrow the money in Nisan but he did not actually borrow the money until Tishrei, and between Nisan and Tishrei he sold land. These lands are not liened to the debt, as the liability to repay the loan took effect only when he actually borrowed the money. And the creditor will come to repossess the land that was sold between Nisan and Tishrei from the purchasers, unlawfully.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 砖讟专讬 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪谉 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛讜 讛讻讬


The Gemara asks: If so, if the court must be concerned that the date on a promissory note predates the actual loan, we should likewise be concerned that all promissory notes that come before us to the court are perhaps predated.


讻诇 砖讟专讬 诇讗 专讬注讬 讛谞讬 专讬注讬


The Gemara answers: The credibility of all promissory notes in general has not been compromised, as they remain in the creditor鈥檚 possession, which is the correct location in the case of an outstanding loan. The credibility of these promissory notes has been compromised by the fact that they were lost.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 诇诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪诇讜讛 注诪讜 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讛讬讻讬 讻转讘讬谞讛讜 谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇诇讜转 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗转讬 诇诪讟专祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉


The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 167b): One may write a promissory note for a borrower even if the lender is not with him because it is the borrower who assumes liability based on the note, the question arises: How can one write this promissory note ab initio? Let us be concerned that perhaps the borrower wants to write the note as he intends to borrow money in Nisan, but will ultimately not borrow the money until Tishrei, and the lender might then come to repossess the land that the borrower sells between Nisan and Tishrei from the purchasers, unlawfully.


讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬


Rav Asi said:


Scroll To Top