Bava Metzia 12b — the Talmud in English

But Rava said:

even though a minor has no acquisition according to Torah law, here

they made

one who does not acquire

like one who acquires.

What is the reason?

Since

the poor themselves are pleased

that their sons should glean after them

, just as when they hire them for themselves, they should glean

their sons after them

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

The conclusion of the matter: According to Shmuel—since a minor has no acquisition for himself according to Torah law, but only by rabbinic ordinance for the sake of the ways of peace, they ordained that the father acquire his son's found object, because he is pleased with his father.

And Rabbi Yosei also holds this way. And only with regard to gleanings: “They made one who does not acquire like one who acquires,” as above.

And

Shmuel's words

disagree

with

the

words

of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba.

For Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: “

The ‘adults’ and ‘minors’ mentioned in our Mishna”—

not an adult who is literally an adult, and not a minor who is literally a minor,

Rather: An adult who is dependent on his father's table—this is a minor. A minor who is not dependent on his father's table—this is an adult.

And according to his view, even though an adult has acquisition according to Torah law, nevertheless, if he is dependent on his father's table, they ordained that his found object belongs to his father because of animosity.

We learned in the Mishna: “

The found object of his Hebrew male slave and Hebrew maidservant is their own”:

And we ask:

Why?

[Why does a Hebrew slave acquire his found object]?

Let him be only

like a

laborer, and it was taught—

“A laborer's found object belongs to himself. In what case is this said? When he said to him, ‘Hoe with me today; dig with me today.’

But if he said to him—

‘Do work with me today,’

that is, he hired him for any work that he would do—

“his found object belongs to the employer.”

But a Hebrew slave, too, is acquired by his master for every work that he will do; so why does his found object belong to himself?

And we answer:

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

and his master is not pleased that he engage in collecting found objects.

Therefore, if a found object happened upon him and he lifted it, he acquired it, and he gives his master the wages for the work he lost because of the trouble of the found object.

Rava said: We are dealing with one who lifts a found object together with his work

and does not interrupt any of his work; therefore, his found object belongs to himself.

Rav Pappa said:

This that we say, “A laborer's found object belongs to the employer,” is in

a case where he hired him to collect found objects,

And what is the case—

when the riverbank was surrounded with fish

[when the river rose over its banks, and the fish floated there, and when the water dried up many fish were found there, and he hired him to gather them].

But ordinarily, a laborer's found object belongs to himself. And therefore, an ordinary Hebrew slave's found object belongs to himself.

We learned in the Mishna: “The found object of his Hebrew male and female slaves is theirs.”

And we ask:

This “maidservant

Hebrew

”—what are the circumstances?

If she has produced two hairs, what is she doing with him?

For a Hebrew maidservant goes free when she produces two hairs.

And if she has not produced two hairs,

why does her found object belong to herself? In either event—

if the father is alive, it belongs to the father

[if her father is alive, her found object belongs to her father, like the found object of his minor daughter],

and if there is no father, she should go free upon the death of the father

[for she went free upon the death of the father].

For Reish Lakish said—

“A Hebrew maidservant acquires

her

self

from

the master's authority upon the death of the father, by a kal va-chomer.

we answer:

And

we answer:

Was Reish Lakish not refuted?!

For the words of Reish Lakish were rejected. And we hold that she does not go free upon the death of the father.

And if so, the Mishna is speaking of a maidservant who had not produced two hairs and whose father died; therefore, her found object belongs to herself.

And we consider:

Let us say that this, too, should be a tiyu vta

against the words of Reish Lakish?

And we reject this:

No!

From our Mishna it cannot be proved that it is not in accordance with Reish Lakish, for

always

it is possible to establish the case

where the father is alive,

and indeed her found object belongs to him,

And what

do we mean when we say—

“it is theirs,”

not theirs literally, but

to exclude that

the found object does not belong to

his master?

[the master].

We learned in the Mishna:

“The found object of his wife

whom he divorced, although he has not given her the marriage settlement, is theirs.”

And we ask: If he

divorced her, it is obvious

that the found object is not his, for she has left his authority.

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here—

with one who is divorced and is not divorced.

For example, he threw her a bill of divorce, and it is uncertain whether it was closer to him or closer to her, which constitutes doubtful divorce.

For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Shmuel: Wherever the Sages said “divorced and not divorced,” her husband is obligated in her sustenance.

However,

And it teaches us that nevertheless he does not acquire her found object, because

what is the reason the Sages said, “A woman's found object belongs to her husband”? So that she should not have animosity toward him.

However,

here,

since she is in any event destined to be divorced—

she has animosity and animosity.

Therefore, her found object belongs to herself.

Mishna:

If

a person finds

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

debt documents, if they contain a lien upon property,

that is, it is written in them that there is a lien upon land from which the creditor will collect if the debtor does not repay him—

he shall not return

them to the creditor, because

the court collects from them

[it collects, on the basis of these documents, land from purchasers who bought it from the debtor after the loan. And if he returns them to the creditor, he may collect on their basis unlawfully, as will be explained in the Gemara].

But if he found documents in which

no

is

written lien upon property—

he shall return

them to the creditor, because

the court does not collect from them,

and there is no concern of mishap here.

The words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Whether so or whether so,

whether they contain a lien upon property or whether they do not—

he shall not return

them to the creditor,

because

even when they do not contain a lien upon property,

the court collects from them.

And in the Gemara below, the reasons for the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages will be explained.

Gemara:

And we consider:

With what are we dealing?

If you say, when the

debtor

admits,

that is, the debtor,

admits

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

when

[when]

they contain a lien upon property—

why should he not return

the document to the creditor?

The debtor admits

that he did not repay, and the creditor will collect his debt from him lawfully by means of the document.

And if the debtor has nothing with which to repay, and the creditor will have to seize from the purchasers, what of it? He is collecting according to law!

And if it is when the debtor does not admit

, because they do not contain a lien upon property—

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

[indeed, it is impossible to collect by this document from encumbered property], but

from unencumbered property—

he can collect

[from free persons, they collect by this document]; and the debtor claims that he has already repaid his debt!

And we explain:

Always

it is speaking

when the debtor admits. And here the reason

that he should not return it to the creditor is because

we are concerned that perhaps the debtor wrote

the document in order

to borrow in

the month of

Nisan,

and the date of the month 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 document to the creditor,

he will come to seize

from

purchasers

who bought land from the debtor between Nisan and Tishrei, because the date of the making of the document is Nisan, and this is

unlawful,

for the loan itself was made only in Tishrei, and only from then did the lien take effect!

And we wonder:

If so,

if we are concerned about this,

all documents that come before us

[all the documents that come before us in court]—how do we seize on their basis from the purchasers?

Let us be concerned about them in this way

[let us have this concern regarding them]: Perhaps he wrote to borrow in Nisan, but did not borrow until Tishrei!

And we explain:

All documents—

are not defective

[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 documents that were found—

are defective.

They contain a defect. For if they were valid, the creditor would have been careful with them so that they would not be lost from him. Therefore, we are concerned that perhaps an earlier date than the time when the loan was actually made was written in them, and one may not collect with them from purchasers.

And we ask:

But this that we learned: “They write a document 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 now—

how do they write them initially,

how do they initially write such a document?!

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

in the end was delayed, and

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