## Bava Metzia Daf 12b

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

עָשׂוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה כְּזוֹכֶה, מַאי טַעְמָא – עֲנִיִּים גּוּפַיְיהוּ נִיחָא לְהוּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּכִי אָגְרוּ לְדִידְהוּ נִלְקוֹט בְּנַיְיהוּ בָּתְרַיְיהוּ.

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


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

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא גָּדוֹל – גָּדוֹל מַמָּשׁ, וְלֹא קָטָן – קָטָן מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא גָּדוֹל וְסָמוּךְ עַל שֻׁלְחָן אָבִיו – זֶהוּ קָטָן. קָטָן וְאֵינוֹ סָמוּךְ עַל שֻׁלְחָן אָבִיו – זֶהוּ גָּדוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** Shmuel, in his above explanation of the mishna, **disagrees** with the opinion **of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’s 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’s 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’s table** for support, **this is** considered **an adult** in this context, and any lost item that he finds is his.


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

מְצִיאַת עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל עַצְמָן. אַמַּאי לֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא פּוֹעֵל? וְתַנְיָא: מְצִיאַת פּוֹעֵל לְעַצְמוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ: ״נַכֵּשׁ עִמִּי הַיּוֹם״, ״עֲדוֹר עַמִּי הַיּוֹם״.

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


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

אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ ״עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי מְלָאכָה הַיּוֹם״ – מְצִיאָתוֹ לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s,** 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’t his master acquire all items that he finds?


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

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָכָא בְּעֶבֶד נוֹקֵב מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת עָסְקִינַן, שֶׁאֵין רַבּוֹ רוֹצֶה לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ לִמְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּמַגְבִּיהַּ מְצִיאָה עִם מְלַאכְתּוֹ עָסְקִינַן.

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


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

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׂכָרוֹ לְלַקֵּט מְצִיאוֹת. וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי? דְּאַקְּפַי אַגְמָא בִּכְווֹרֵי.

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


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

הַאי שִׁפְחָה הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאַיְיתַי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, מַאי בָּעֲיָא גַּבֵּיהּ?

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


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

וְאִי דְּלָא אַיְיתַי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, אִי אִיתֵיהּ לְאָב – דַּאֲבוּהּ הָוְיָא! וְאִי דְּלֵיתֵיהּ לָאָב – תִּיפּוֹק בְּמִיתַת הָאָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’s, and if** her **father is not** still alive, **she should have gone free with the death of her father.**


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

דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה קֹנָה עַצְמָהּ בְּמִיתַת הָאָב מֵרְשׁוּת הָאָדוֹן מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. וְלָאו אִיתּוֹתַב רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’s authority but do not release her from her father’s authority, as although she shows signs indicating puberty she remains under her father’s authority with regard to certain matters. Therefore, is it not logical that her father’s death, which releases her entirely from the father’s 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’t** the opinion of **Reish Lakish conclusively refuted?** It is not accepted as *halakha*.


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

נֵימָא מֵהַאי נָמֵי תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְאָב, וּמַאי ״הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁלָּהֶן״ – לְאַפּוֹקֵי דְּרַבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This mishna is **not** a refutation of Reish Lakish’s 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.


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

מְצִיאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ. גֵּירְשָׁהּ פְּשִׁיטָא!

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


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

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בִּמְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים ״מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת״ – בַּעְלָהּ חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

טַעְמָא מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן מְצִיאַת אִשָּׁה לְבַעְלָהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תֶּיהְוֵי לַהּ אֵיבָה. הָכָא אִית לַהּ אֵיבָה וְאֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s **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.


###### Bava Metzia 12b:16
[Bava Metzia 12b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12b:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** מָצָא שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – לֹא יַחְזִיר, שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן. אֵין בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – יַחְזִיר, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’s land. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Bava Metzia 12b:17
[Bava Metzia 12b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12b:17)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ לֹא יַחְזִיר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’s land.


###### Bava Metzia 12b:18
[Bava Metzia 12b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12b:18)

**גְּמָ׳** בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, כִּי יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים אַמַּאי לֹא יַחְזִיר? הָא מוֹדֶה! וְאִי כְּשֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, כִּי אֵין בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים אַמַּאי יַחְזִיר? נְהִי דְּלָא גָּבֵי מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדֵי – מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי מִגְבָּא גָּבֵי!

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


###### Bava Metzia 12b:19
[Bava Metzia 12b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12b:19)

לְעוֹלָם כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: דְּחָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא כָּתַב לִלְוֹת בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא לָוָה עַד תִּשְׁרִי, וְאָתֵי לְמִטְרַף לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין.

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


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

אִי הָכִי, כֹּל שְׁטָרֵי דְּאָתוּ לְקַמַּן נֵיחוּשׁ לְהוּ הָכִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Metzia 12b:21
[Bava Metzia 12b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12b:21)

כֹּל שְׁטָרֵי לָא רִיעֵי, הָנֵי רִיעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The credibility of **all** promissory **notes** in general has **not** been **compromised,** as they remain in the creditor’s 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.


###### Bava Metzia 12b:22
[Bava Metzia 12b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12b:22)

אֶלָּא הָא דִּתְנַן: כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַלֹּוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַלְוֶה עִמּוֹ. לְכַתְּחִילָּה הֵיכִי כָּתְבִינַן? נֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא כָּתַב לִלְוֹת בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא לָוָה עַד תִּשְׁרִי, וְאָתֵי לְמִטְרַף לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין!

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


###### Bava Metzia 12b:23
[Bava Metzia 12b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/12b:23)

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Asi said:**