## Bava Metzia Daf 12a

###### Bava Metzia 12a:1
[Bava Metzia 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:1)

חָצֵר אִיתְרַבַּאי מִשּׁוּם יָד וְלָא גָּרְעָה מִשְּׁלִיחוּת. גַּבֵּי גֵּט דְּחוֹב הוּא לָהּ: אֵין חָבִין לְאָדָם אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו. גַּבֵּי מַתָּנָה דִּזְכוּת הוּא לוֹ: זָכִין לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One’s **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’s absence, as **one can act in a person’s interest in his absence.**


###### Bava Metzia 12a:2
[Bava Metzia 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:2)

גּוּפָא. רָאָה אוֹתָן רָצִין אַחַר הַמְּצִיאָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהוּא שֶׁרָץ אַחֲרֵיהֶן וּמַגִּיעָן. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בְּמַתָּנָה הֵיאַךְ? קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כָּהֲנָא: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָץ אַחֲרֵיהֶן וְאֵין מַגִּיעָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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 Yoḥanan 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.**


###### Bava Metzia 12a:3
[Bava Metzia 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:3)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: זָרַק אַרְנָקִי בְּפֶתַח זֶה וְיָצָא בְּפֶתַח אַחֵר, מַהוּ? אֲוִיר שֶׁאֵין סוֹפוֹ לָנוּחַ כְּמוּנָּח דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Bava Metzia 12a:4
[Bava Metzia 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה לְרָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: לָאו הַיְינוּ מַתְנִיתִין. רָאָה אוֹתָן רָצִין אַחַר הַמְּצִיאָה, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהוּא שֶׁרָץ אַחֲרֵיהֶן וּמַגִּיעָן, וּבָעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בְּמַתָּנָה הֵיאַךְ? וְקַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כָּהֲנָא: בְּמַתָּנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָץ אַחֲרֵיהֶן וְאֵין מַגִּיעָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’t 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 Yoḥanan 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.**


###### Bava Metzia 12a:5
[Bava Metzia 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, מִתְגַּלְגֵּל קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי מִתְגַּלְגֵּל דִּכְמוּנָּח דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Metzia 12a:6
[Bava Metzia 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** מְצִיאַת בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים, מְצִיאַת עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים, מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. מְצִיאַת בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים, מְצִיאַת עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים, מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁגֵּירְשָׁהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן כְּתוּבָּה – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **the found item of** one’s **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’s **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.**


###### Bava Metzia 12a:7
[Bava Metzia 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ מְצִיאַת קָטָן לְאָבִיו – שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמּוֹצְאָהּ מְרִיצָהּ אֵצֶל אָבִיו, וְאֵינוֹ מְאַחֵר בְּיָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Shmuel says: For what** reason **did** the Sages **say** that **the found item of** one’s **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.**


###### Bava Metzia 12a:8
[Bava Metzia 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:8)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל קָטָן לֵית לֵיהּ זְכִיָּיה לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל – יְלַקֵּט בְּנוֹ אַחֲרָיו. לְמֶחֱצָה, לִשְׁלִישׁ וְלִרְבִיעַ – לֹא יְלַקֵּט בְּנוֹ אַחֲרָיו. רַבִּי יוֹסִי אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ יְלַקֵּט בְּנוֹ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ אַחֲרָיו. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’t 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’s **son and wife may glean after him. And Shmuel says** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei.**


###### Bava Metzia 12a:9
[Bava Metzia 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:9)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קָטָן אִית לֵיהּ זְכִיָּיה לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, כִּי קָא מְלַקֵּט – לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָא מְלַקֵּט, וַאֲבוּהּ מִינֵּיהּ קָא זָכֵי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ קָטָן לֵית לֵיהּ זְכִיָּיה לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, כִּי קָא מְלַקֵּט – לְאָבִיו קָא מְלַקֵּט, אֲבוּהּ עָשִׁיר הוּא, אַמַּאי אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבְנוֹ מְלַקֵּט אַחֲרָיו?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if you say** that **a minor has** the capability of **acquiring** property **for himself,** Shmuel’s 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?**


###### Bava Metzia 12a:10
[Bava Metzia 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:10)

שְׁמוּאֵל, טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא דִּידַן קָאָמַר, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In Shmuel’s 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.


###### Bava Metzia 12a:11
[Bava Metzia 12a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:11)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי קָטָן אִית לֵיהּ זְכִיָּיה מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא? וְהָתְנַן: מְצִיאַת חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does Rabbi Yosei hold** that **a minor has** the capability of **acquiring** property **by Torah** law? **But didn’t 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.**


###### Bava Metzia 12a:12
[Bava Metzia 12a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:12)

וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְהוֹצִיאָהּ בְּדַיָּינִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Ḥisda 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’s 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.


###### Bava Metzia 12a:13
[Bava Metzia 12a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:13)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: עֲשָׂאוּהָ כְּמִי שֶׁהָלְכוּ בָּהּ נָמוֹשׁוֹת. דַּעֲנִיִּים גּוּפַיְיהוּ מַסְּחִי דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ. סָבְרִי: בְּרֵיהּ דְּהַיְאךְ מְלַקֵּטי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye** rejected the above explanation of Rabbi Yosei’s opinion in the *baraita* with regard to gleaning, and **said:** The reason that according to Rabbi Yosei a sharecropper’s 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’s 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’s son can glean for his father.


###### Bava Metzia 12a:14
[Bava Metzia 12a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה לְאַבָּיֵי: וְכִי מוּתָּר לָאָדָם לְהַרְבִּיץ אֲרִי בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאוּ עֲנִיִּים וְיִבְרְחוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?**


###### Bava Metzia 12a:15
[Bava Metzia 12a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12a:15)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava stated** an alternative explanation: