טו אלא אמר רבא
15 And Samuel said: The <i>halachah</i> is like R. Jose. Now it is all well if you say that a minor has a right to acquire things for himself in accordance with Biblical Law. For then his son gathers the gleanings for himself, and the father acquires it from him. But if you say that a minor has no right to acquire anything for himself, then the son must gather the gleaning for his father; but his father is rich,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he receives part of the crops. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> — why then may his wife and son gather the gleaning behind him? — Samuel merely gave the reason of the Tanna of our Mishnah, but he himself does not hold that view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He himself does not hold that an object found by a minor belongs to his father. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> And does R. Jose hold the view that a minor has a right to acquire things for himself in accordance with Biblical law? Have we not learnt: An object found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor [may not be taken away from them as the law of] robbery is applied to them out of consideration for the public good.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'ways of peace'. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> R. Jose says: It is actual robbery.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 59b. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> And R. Hisda says: It is actual robbery because of an enactment by the Rabbis; the difference is as regards reclaiming the object by law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the view of R. Jose the robbed object can be reclaimed by legal proceedings. But even according to him it is not a Biblical law that a minor has a right to acquire things for himself. Consequently by gleaning after his father, and on behalf of his father (who is now rich) he robs the poor. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> — Therefore Abaye said: [The field] is treated as if the last gleaners had passed through it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Pe'ah VIII, 1. Abaye admits that a minor has no right of possession, but he advances another reason why a minor may glean after his father: When the poor learn that the labourer in the field has a wife and children they give up hope of finding any gleanings there. The field is thus regarded as one through which the old people ([H]) have passed (old people who come last and walk slowly and haltingly, so that they cannot miss anything still left on the ground) and in which everybody is allowed to take away the gleanings — even the rich — because of the assumption that the poor are satisfied that after these last gleaners have searched the field nothing worth taking is left. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> so that the poor themselves dismiss it from their minds, thinking that the son of that [labourer] would gather the gleaning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is why the son may gather the gleanings for his father. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> R. Adda b. Mattena then said to Abaye: Is it permissible for a man to cause a lion to lie down in his field in order that the poor may see it and run away?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the only reason why the son is permitted to gather the gleaning is that his presence serves to keep the poor away, although he is not legally entitled to glean in the field, it is like placing a wild beast in the field in order to frighten the poor people away, which is, of course, wrong. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> — Therefore Raba said: