Bava Metzia 20

Chapter 20

א רב פפא אמר כי תקינו ליה רבנן ארבע אמות בעלמא בשדה דבעל הבית לא תקינו ליה רבנן ואע"ג דזכה ליה רחמנא בגוה כי זכה ליה רחמנא להלוכי בה ולנקוטי פיאה למיהוי חצירו לא זכה ליה רחמנא

1 R. Papa said: The Rabbis instituted [the law of the] four cubits only in a public place.1

ב אמר רבא מותיב ר' יעקב בר אידי נזיקין ראה את המציאה ונפל לו עליה ובא אחר והחזיק בה זה שהחזיק בה זכה בה ואי אמרת ארבע אמות של אדם קונות לו בכל מקום נקנו ליה ארבע אמות דידיה

2 but the Rabbis did not institute [such a law] in a private person's field.2

ג הכא במאי עסקינן דלא אמר אקני ואי תקון רבנן כי לא אמר מאי הוי כיון דנפל עליה גלי דעתיה דבנפילה ניחא ליה דנקני בארבע אמות לא ניחא ליה דנקני

3 And although the Divine Law gave [the poor person] a right therein, it gave him the right to walk in it and glean its corners, but the Divine Law did not give him the right to regard it as his ground.3

ד רב ששת אמר כי תקינו רבנן בסמטא דלא דחקי רבים ברשות הרבים דקא דחקי רבים לא תקינו רבנן

4 Raba said: R. Jacob b. Idi raised an objection from [the tractate of] Nezikin: IF ONE SEES AN OWNERLESS OBJECT AND FALLS UPON IT, AND ANOTHER PERSON COMES AND SEIZES IT, HE WHO SEIZED IT IS ENTITLED TO ITS POSSESSION — now if you will say [that] the four cubits of a person acquire for him [an ownerless object] everywhere, let his four cubits acquire it for him [in this case also]? — Here we deal [with a case] where he did not say, 'I wish to acquire it.' But if the Rabbis instituted [the right of the four cubits], what does it matter if he did not say it? — As he fell [upon the object] he made it clear that he wished to acquire it by falling [on it] but did not wish to acquire it by means of the four cubits. R. Shesheth said: The Rabbis instituted [the law of the four cubits] in regard to a side-street, which is not crowded, [but] in regard to a high road, which may be crowded, the Rabbis did not institute [this law]. But does it not say 'everywhere'? — [The term] 'everywhere' is to include the [ground on both] sides of the high road.4

ה והא בכל מקום קאמר

5 Resh Lakish said further in the name of Abba Kohen Bardala: A girl who is [still] a minor5

ו כל מקום לאתויי צידי רשות הרבים

6 has neither the right [to acquire, an object by means] of her 'ground'6

ז ואמר ריש לקיש משום אבא כהן ברדלא קטנה אין לה חצר ואין לה ארבע אמות ור' יוחנן משום ר' ינאי אמר יש לה חצר ויש לה ארבע אמות

7 nor the right [to acquire an object by means] of her 'four cubits'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, if she is married, the husband cannot divorce her by throwing the bill of divorcement into her court or into the space constituting her four cubits in a public place, although in the case of a wife who has attained her majority (cf. Keth. 39a) this would be a valid way of effecting her divorce (cf. Git. 78a). ');">7

ח במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר חצר משום ידה איתרבאי כי היכי דאית לה יד חצר נמי אית לה ומר סבר חצר משום שליחות איתרבאי וכי היכי דשליחות לית לה חצר נמי לית לה

8 But R. Johanan said in the name of R. Jannai: She has the right, both in regard to her ground and in regard to her four cubits. Wherein do they differ? — One8

ט מי איכא מאן דאמר חצר משום שליחות איתרבאי והתניא (שמות כב, ג) בידו אין לי אלא ידו גגו חצירו וקרפיפו מנין ת"ל (שמות כב, ג) המצא תמצא מכל מקום

9 is of the opinion that [the scriptural term] 'ground'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used in Deut, XXIV, 1: that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand. cf. Git. 77b. That the term 'hand' means also 'possession' may be gathered from Num, XXI, 26. ');">9

י ואי סלקא דעתך חצר משום שליחות איתרבאי אם כן מצינו שליח לדבר עבירה וקיימא לן אין שליח לדבר עבירה

10 is included in her 'hand'; just as her 'hand' acts for her, so her 'ground' also acts for her. But the other10

יא אמר רבינא היכא אמרינן דאין שליח לדבר עבירה היכא דשליח בר חיובא הוא אבל בחצר דלאו בר חיובא הוא מיחייב שולחו

11 is of the opinion that 'ground' [acts] In the capacity of 'agent';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not because it is like her 'hand' and thus 'acts' automatically, but because the ground stands to her in the relation of a messenger to the sender, or of an agent to the originator of a deed, for which a free will or a sense of legal responsibility is required. A minor cannot therefore be represented by such an agent. The right of an adult person, whether man or woman, to act through a messenger, or agent, as regards marriage and divorce, is derived from Deut, XXIV, 1. v. Kid. 41a. ');">11

יב אלא מעתה האומר לאשה ועבד צאו גנבו לי דלאו בני חיובא נינהו הכי נמי דמיחייב שולחן

12 and as she has not the power [while she is a minor] to appoint an agent to act for her12

יג אמרת אשה ועבד בני חיובא נינהו והשתא מיהא לית להו לשלומי דתנן נתגרשה האשה נשתחרר העבד חייבין לשלם

13 neither can her 'ground' act for her. But is there anyone who says that 'ground' is regarded as 'agent'? Was it not taught: [If the theft be found at all] in his hand [alive];13

יד רב סמא אמר היכא אמרינן אין שליח לדבר עבירה היכא דאי בעי עביד ואי בעי לא עביד אבל חצר דבעל כרחיה מותיב בה מיחייב שולחו

14 — [from this] I would gather [that the law applies] only [when it is found in] 'his hand': how do we know that the same law applies [when the theft is found on] his roof, in his court-yard and in his enclosure?14

טו מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו כהן דאמר ליה לישראל צא וקדש לי אשה גרושה אי נמי איש דאמר לה לאשה אקפי לי קטן

15 Because we are told: [If the theft] 'be found at all',15

טז להך לישנא דאמר כל היכא דאי בעי עביד אי בעי לא עביד לא מיחייב שולחו ה"נ אי בעי עביד אי בעי לא עביד לא מיחייב שולחן להך לישנא דאמרת כל היכא דשליח לאו בר חיובא מיחייב שולחו הני נמי כיון דלאו בני חיובא נינהו מיחייב שולחן

16 [which means]: 'wherever [it may be found].'16

יז ומי איכא למ"ד חצר לאו משום ידה איתרבאי והתניא ידה אין לי אלא ידה גגה חצירה וקרפיפה מנין ת"ל ונתן מכל מקום

17 Now if your view is that 'ground' [acts] because it is regarded as agent, then we must conclude [that there] is an agent for a sinful act,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the responsibility for the act rest upon the principal originator, who instructed the agent, and not upon the agent who carried out the instruction. The sinful act in this case is the act of stealing the animal. ');">17

יח לענין גט כולי עלמא לא פליגי דחצר משום ידה איתרבאי כי פליגי לענין מציאה מ"ס

18 whereas it is held by us18 that there is no agent for a sinful act?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one commits an illegal act on the instruction of someone else the guilt rests upon the performer of the act, and not upon the one who gave the instruction, as each person is bound to obey the law given by the Supreme Master, and one has no right to carry out the instruction of another person if it is contrary to the divine Law. ');">19 — Rabina answered: We say 'there is no agent for a sinful act' only when the agent is subject to the law prohibiting the act, but in regard to [a thief's] 'ground', which cannot be said to be subject to the law prohibiting the act [of stealing] the responsibility [does not lie with the agent, but it] lies with the originator [of the deed]. But if so — what if one says to a woman or a slave: 'Go and steal for me,' seeing that they are not subject to the law prohibiting the act [of stealing].20 does the responsibility in this case also lie with the originator [of the deed]? — I will tell you: A woman and a slave are subject to the law prohibiting [theft], only they are temporarily unable to pay,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The married woman cannot pay because she cannot dispose of her property without her husband's consent, and the slave because everything he has belongs to his master, ');">21 as we learnt: When the woman has been divorced and the slave set free, they are obliged to pay.22 R. Sama said: When do we say, 'there is no agent for a sinful act'? — [Only in a case] where [the agent is at liberty to choose: to] do it if he wishes, and not do it if he does not wish. But in regard to a 'ground' [where. e.g., a stolen animal is found], seeing that it has no will but must receive [what is deposited therein, the responsibility lies with the originator [e.g., of the theft]. Wherein do they differ?23 — They differ [in the case where] a priest says to an Israelite: 'Go and betroth for me a divorced woman'24 or [where] a man says to a woman:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman is not subject to the prohibition of rounding the corners of the head (Lev. XIX, 27) as she is not subject to the prohibition contained in the second half of the same Biblical verse, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Cf. Kid. 35b; Naz. 57b. ');">25 'Cut around the corners of the hair of a minor:'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor is mentioned for the reason that an adult will not allow anyone to round the corners of his head, as the Biblical prohibition applies to 'rounding' as well as to 'being rounded'. ');">26 according to the version which says that whenever [the agent has the choice to] do it if he wishes, and not to do it if he does not wish, the responsibility does not lie with the originator; here also he has the choice to do if he wishes and not to do it if he does not wish, [and therefore] the responsibility does not lie with the originator. But according to the version which says that whenever the agent is not subject to the law prohibiting the act, the responsibility lies with the originator, in these [cases] also, seeing that [the agents] are not subject to the laws prohibiting the acts, the responsibility lies with the originators. But is there anyone who says that 'ground' is not included in [the term] 'hand'? Has it not been taught: [And he shall give it] in her hand27 — from this I would learn only that 'her hand' acts for her. How do we know [that] her roof, her courtyard and her enclosed space [also act for her]? Because the Scriptural verse emphasises, 'And he shall give', [which implies that he may give it to her] anywhere.?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The term [H] 'and he shall give' is taken as having no exclusive reference to the following word [H] ('in her hand'). Had the emphasis been restricted to 'in her hand' the term used would have been [H] (Rashi). The inference therefore is that any place belonging to her, i.e. her 'ground', is as good as her 'hand', and not because the place is her 'agent', for the fact that the woman can appoint an agent in connection with either marriage or divorce is already indicated in this verse by the word [H] 'he shall send her' (cf. Kid., 41a), and need not be indicated again by [H]. Git. 77a. ');">28 With regard to a divorce there is no difference of opinion [and all agree] that 'ground' is included in her 'hand'. The difference of opinion exists only as regards a found object: One29 is of the opinion that

Previous Chapter Next Chapter