Bava Metzia 12b (יב:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, Rava said:

even though, according to Torah law, a minor cannot acquire property, here

they made

one who cannot acquire property

like one who can acquire property.

What is the reason?

Since

the poor themselves are pleased

that their sons should glean after them,

just as, when they are hired themselves, their sons should glean

after them [so that if they are hired as laborers, they will also allow their sons to glean after them].

The conclusion of the matter: According to Shmuel, since a minor cannot acquire property for himself by Torah law, but only by rabbinic enactment for the sake of maintaining peaceful relations, the Sages enacted that a father acquires his minor son's lost property, because the son will hasten to bring it to his father.

Rabbi Yosei also held this way. Only with regard to gleanings did they say: “They made one who cannot acquire property like one who can acquire property,” as explained above.

And

the statement of Shmuel

disagrees

with

the statement

of

Rabbi

Hiyya bar Abba.

As Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

“Adults” and “minors,” which are mentioned in our Mishna,

do not mean a genuine adult and a genuine minor,

Rather: An adult who is dependent on his father’s table is deemed a minor; a minor who is not dependent on his father’s table is deemed an adult.

According to his view, although an adult can acquire property by Torah law, nevertheless, if he is dependent on his father’s table, the Sages enacted that his lost property belongs to his father, due to the possibility of animosity.

We learned in the Mishna:

“The lost property of his Hebrew slave and maidservant belongs to them.”

And we ask:

Why?

Why does a Hebrew slave acquire his lost property?

It should be no different

from

a hired laborer, as it was taught:

“A laborer’s lost property belongs to him. When does this apply? When he said to him, ‘Weed with me today’ or ‘Plow with me today.’

But if he said to him:

‘Perform work with me today,’

meaning that he hired him for any work that he might perform,

“his lost property belongs to the employer.”

But a Hebrew slave is likewise acquired by his master for any work that he might perform. Why, then, does his lost property belong to him?

And we answer:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Here we are dealing with a slave who cuts pearls. His master does not wish to assign him to another type of work,

and his master is not pleased for him to engage in collecting lost property.

Therefore, if he happens to find lost property and picks it up, he acquires it, but he gives his master the wages for the time he was prevented from performing his work because of the effort involved in dealing with the lost property.

Rava said: Here we are dealing with one who raises a lost object while continuing with his work,

so he lost no time from his work; therefore, his lost property belongs to him.

Rav Pappa said:

The statement that “a laborer’s lost property belongs to the employer” applies

when, for example, he hired him to collect lost property,

And what are the circumstances?

When the riverbank was surrounded by fish [when the river overflowed its banks and the fish floated there, and when the water dried up many fish were found there, so he hired him to gather them].

But ordinarily, a laborer’s lost property belongs to him. Therefore, in the ordinary case, a Hebrew slave’s lost property belongs to him.

We learned in the Mishna: “The lost property of his Hebrew slave and maidservant belongs to them.”

And we ask:

What are the circumstances of

this “maidservant

Hebrew

”?

If she has brought forth two pubic hairs, what is she doing with him?

A Hebrew maidservant goes free once she has brought forth two pubic hairs.

And if she has not brought forth two pubic hairs,

why does her lost property belong to her? In either event:

If her father is alive, it belongs to her father, [if her father is alive, her lost property belongs to him, like the lost property of his minor daughter ],

and if her father is not alive, she should go free upon her father’s death

[for she goes free upon her father’s death].

As Reish Lakish said:

A Hebrew maidservant acquires

herself

from the authority of her master upon her father’s death, by means of a

kal va-chomer,

from

And

we answer:

Was Reish Lakish not refuted?!

His statement was rejected, and we hold that she does not go free upon her father’s death.

Therefore, the Mishna is referring to a maidservant who has not brought forth two pubic hairs and whose father died; consequently, her lost property belongs to her.

And we inquire:

Let us say that this too should constitute a refutation

of the view of Reish Lakish?

And we reject this:

No!

Our Mishna cannot prove that it is not in accordance with Reish Lakish, since

it can always

be established in a case

where her father is alive,

and indeed her lost property belongs to him.

And what

do we mean when we say:

“It belongs to them”?

It does not mean that it belongs to them literally; rather,

it is to exclude that

the lost property does not belong to

their master.

[the master].

We learned in the Mishna:

“The lost property of his wife whom he divorced, although he has not yet given her the payment of her marriage contract, belongs to her.”

And we ask: If

he divorced her, it is obvious

that the lost property is not his, since she has left his authority.

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here?

With a woman who is divorced but not completely divorced.

For example, he threw her a bill of divorce, but it was uncertain whether it was closer to him or closer to her, so it is a case of uncertain divorce.

As Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: Wherever the Sages said that a woman is divorced but not completely divorced, her husband is obligated to provide her sustenance .

With a woman who is divorced but not fully divorced.

And this teaches us that nevertheless he does not acquire her lost property, because

why did the Sages say, “A woman’s lost property belongs to her husband”? So that there would not be animosity between them.

However,

here,

since she is in any event destined to be divorced,

there is already animosity.

Therefore, her lost property belongs to her.

Mishna:

If a person

found

promissory notes,

if they contain a lien on property,

meaning that they state that land is encumbered

and that the creditor may collect from it if the debtor does not repay him,

he may not return

them to the creditor, because the court can collect from them

[the court can collect, on the basis of these notes, land from purchasers who bought it from the debtor after the loan was made. If he returns them to the creditor, the creditor might collect on their basis unlawfully, as will be explained in the Gemara].

them to the lender because

But if he found notes that

do not

state that they contain a lien on property— he may return

them to the creditor, because

the court cannot collect from them,

and there is no concern that this will lead to a mishap.

This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: In either case,

whether they contain a lien on property or do not contain one,

he may not return

them to the creditor,

because

even when they do not contain a lien,

the court can collect from them.

The Gemara below will explain the reasons for the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages.

Gemara:

And we inquire:

What are the circumstances?

If we say that the debtor

—meaning the borrower—

admits

that he did not repay the debt to the creditor, then even

when

they contain a lien on property,

why may the finder not return

the note to the creditor?

The debtor admits

that he did not repay the debt, and the creditor can lawfully collect the debt from him by means of the note.

And if the debtor has nothing with which to repay, and the creditor must seize property from purchasers, so what? He is collecting by law!

[when]

And if the debtor does not admit

that they contain no lien on property,

why may he return it? Granted, he cannot collect from encumbered property

[indeed, it is impossible to collect from property subject to a lien by means of this note], but

from unencumbered property

he certainly can collect

[the debt can be collected from unencumbered property by means of this note]; yet the debtor claims that he already repaid his debt!

And we explain:

It is always

the case that we are dealing

with a debtor who admits. And here is the reason

that he may not return it to the creditor:

we are concerned that perhaps the debtor wrote

the note in order to borrow in

the month of

Nisan,

and the date of Nisan was written in it,

but

in fact

he did not borrow until

the month of

Tishrei

of the following year,

and

if the finder returns the note to the creditor,

he will come to seize property from

purchasers

who bought land from the debtor between Nisan and Tishrei, since the date on which the note was made is Nisan. This would be

unlawful,

because the loan itself was made only in Tishrei, and the lien took effect only from that time!

And

if the finder returns the note to the lender,

And we challenge this:

If so,

if we are concerned about this, then regarding

all notes that come before us

[all the notes that come before the court], how can we seize property from purchasers on their basis?

Let us be concerned about them in this manner

[let us entertain this concern regarding them]: perhaps he wrote the note in Nisan, but did not borrow until Tishrei! And we explain: All notes

are not defective

[they contain no indication of any flaw], and therefore we are not concerned that he wrote them with a certain date in mind and ultimately borrowed later, since this is not common.

But

these,

the notes that were found,

are defective.

They contain an indication of a flaw: Had they been valid, the creditor would have taken care not to lose them. Therefore, we are concerned that an earlier date was written in them than the date on which the loan was actually made, and property cannot be collected from purchasers on their basis.

All other notes

are not defective they have no defect or irregularity. Therefore, we are not concerned that the borrower wrote them with an earlier date and borrowed only later, since this is uncommon.

[they contain no defect or blemish], and therefore we are not concerned that perhaps he wrote to borrow on a particular date and in the end borrowed later, for this is not common.

But

these,

the notes that were found,

are defective.

They have an irregularity. If they were valid, the lender would have been careful not to lose them. Therefore, we are concerned that an earlier date was written in them than the date on which the loan was actually made, and property cannot be collected from purchasers on their basis.

And we ask:

But regarding that which we learned: A note may be written for the debtor,

so that it will be ready in his possession whenever he wishes to borrow,

even though the creditor is not with him,

and he is not actually borrowing at that time,

how can such notes be written initially,

how can one initially write such a note?!

Let us be concerned that perhaps he wrote it in order to borrow in Nisan, and

ultimately delayed and

did not borrow until Tishrei, and he will come to seize property from purchasers unlawfully!