Bava Metzia 24

Chapter 24

א עשו שאינו זוכה כזוכה מ"ט עניים גופייהו ניחא להו כי היכי דכי אגרו לדידהו נלקוט בנייהו בתרייהו

1 [In this case] the right to take possession has been conceded to one who really has no such right.1

ב ופליגא דר' חייא בר אבא דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן לא גדול גדול ממש ולא קטן קטן ממש אלא גדול וסמוך על שלחן אביו זהו קטן קטן ואינו סמוך על שלחן אביו זהו גדול:

2 For what reason? — [Because] the poor themselves are pleased [with this concession], so that when they are hired [as labourers] their children may also be allowed to glean after them. Now this [Samuel's view]2

ג מציאת עבדו ושפחתו העברים הרי הוא של עצמן: אמאי לא יהא אלא פועל ותניא מציאת פועל לעצמו במה דברים אמורים בזמן שאמר לו נכש עמי היום עדור עמי היום

3 differs from that of R. Hiyya b. Abba. For R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: [By] MAJOR [we do] not [mean one who is] legally a major, nor [do we mean by] MINOR [one who is] legally a minor, but a major who is maintained by his father is regarded as a minor, and a minor who is not maintained by his father is regarded as a major.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore an object found by a son who is maintained by his father, even if he be an adult, belongs to his father (to avoid ill-feeling), and an object found by one who is not maintained by his father, even if he be a minor, belongs to himself. (Rashi.) ');">3

ד אבל אמר לו עשה עמי מלאכה היום מציאתו לבעל הבית

4 AN OBJECT FOUND BY HIS HEBREW MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT BELONGS TO THE FINDER. Why? Ought not [the servant] to be regarded as a [hired] labourer? And it has been taught: 'An object found by a [hired] labourer belongs to himself. This is the law only when [the employer] said to him: "Weed for me today; hoe for me today," but if [the employer] said to him: "Do work for me today." the object found by him belongs to the employer'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 10a; infra 118a. Thus we see that an object found by a hired labourer engaged to do general work belongs to the employer. The Hebrew servant ought to be treated in the same way, as his time is his master's, and anything he does is done for the master. ');">4

ה אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן הכא בעבד נוקב מרגליות עסקינן שאין רבו רוצה לשנותו למלאכה אחרת

5 — R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: The servant referred to here [in our Mishnah] is one [who does highly skilled work, such as] perforating pearls, so that his master does not wish to change him over to any other kind of work.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The master would therefore not wish him to interrupt his work in order to lift up a found object, the value of which would seldom exceed the value of his work, so that if it does happen that the servant lifts up a valuable object the master can only claim compensation for the time in which he interrupted his work in order to acquire the object. ');">5

ו רבא אמר במגביה מציאה עם מלאכתו עסקינן

6 Raba says: We deal here with [a servant] who picked up a found object while doing his work.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The finding of the object involved no interruption in the servant's work. The object therefore belongs to the servant, and there is no compensation due to the master. ');">6

ז רב פפא אמר כגון ששכרו ללקט מציאות והיכי דמי דאקפי אגמא בכוורי:

7 R. papa says: [The object found by the hired labourer belongs to the employer] when [the employer] hired him to collect ownerless objects, as, for instance, when a meadow was flooded with fish.7

ח האי שפחה היכי דמי אי דאייתי שתי שערות מאי בעיא גביה

8 What kind of a MAIDSERVANT is it [that our Mishnah speaks of]? If it is one who has grown two hairs,8

ט ואי דלא אייתי שתי שערות אי איתיה לאב דאבוה הויא ואי דליתיה לאב תיפוק במיתת האב

9 what business has she with him [who claims to be her master]?9

י דאמר ריש לקיש אמה העבריה קנה עצמה במיתת האב מרשות האדון מקל וחומר ולאו איתותב ריש לקיש

10 And if she has not grown two hairs, then if she has a father the found object belongs to her father,10

יא נימא מהאי נמי תיהוי תיובתא

11 and if she has no father she should have been released on the death of the father.11

יב לא לעולם דאיתיה לאב ומאי הרי הן שלהן לאפוקי דרבה:

12 For Resh Lakish said: The Hebrew maidservant gains her liberty from the master through the death of her father, which law may be derived by means of a Kal wa-homer!12

יג מציאת אשתו: גירשה פשיטא

13 — But was not Resh Lakish refuted?13

יד הכא במאי עסקינן במגורשת ואינה מגורשת דאמר רבי זירא אמר שמואל כל מקום שאמרו חכמים מגורשת ואינה מגורשת בעלה חייב במזונותיה

14 [Yes.] But does not this [law of our Mishnah] provide an additional refutation? — No. You may assume that [our Mishnah refers to a case where] the father is alive, but the words, IT BELONGS TO THE FINDER, mean [in her case] that the master is excluded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The words [H] used in the Mishnah are meant to indicate that the found objects do not belong to the master but become the property of the children's father (who acquires them from the children). ');">14

טו טעמא מאי אמור רבנן מציאת אשה לבעלה כי היכי דלא תיהוי לה איבה הכא אית לה איבה ואיבה:

15 AN OBJECT FOUND BY HIS WIFE [WHOM HE HAS DIVORCED], etc. If he has divorced her it is self-evident [that the object found by her belongs to her]! — Here we deal with the case of a woman who has been divorced and yet is not divorced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is doubtful whether the divorce is valid, as when the husband has thrown to her a bill of divorcement in an open street, and it is not certain whether the document was nearer to him or to her when it fell to the ground. ');">15

טז <big>מתני׳</big> מצא שטרי חוב אם יש בהן אחריות נכסים לא יחזיר שבית דין נפרעין מהן אין בהן אחריות נכסים יחזיר שאין בית דין נפרעין מהן דברי רבי מאיר

16 For R. Zera said in the name of Samuel: Wherever the Sages have said [that a woman is] 'divorced and yet not divorced' her husband is obliged to maintain her.16

יז וחכמים אומרים בין כך ובין כך לא יחזיר מפני שבית דין נפרעין מהן:

17 Now the reason why the Rabbis said that an object found by a wife belongs to her husband is that he may entertain no ill-feeling towards her. Here [it is obvious that the husband] entertains intense ill-feeling towards her.17

יח <big>גמ׳</big> במאי עסקינן אילימא כשחייב מודה כי יש בהן אחריות נכסים אמאי לא יחזיר הא מודה ואי כשאין חייב מודה כי אין בהן אחריות נכסים אמאי יחזיר נהי דלא גבי ממשעבדי מבני חרי מגבא גבי

18 MISHNAH. IF ONE FINDS NOTES OF INDEBTEDNESS CONTAINING A MORTGAGE CLAUSE PLEDGING [THE DEBTOR'S] PROPERTY, ONE SHALL NOT RETURN THEM,18

יט לעולם כשחייב מודה והכא היינו טעמא דחיישינן שמא כתב ללות בניסן ולא לוה עד תשרי ואתי למטרף לקוחות שלא כדין

19 BECAUSE THE COURT WILL ENFORCE PAYMENT ON THE STRENGTH OF THEM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Court will exact payment from the mortgaged property even if the debtor has sold it to others after incurring the debt. This may lead to injustice, as explained below in the Gemara. ');">19

כ אי הכי כל שטרי דאתו לקמן ניחוש להו הכי

20 IF THEY CONTAIN NO SUCH MORTGAGE CLAUSE, ONE SHALL RETURN THEM, BECAUSE THE COURT WILL NOT ENFORCE PAYMENT20

כא כל שטרי לא ריעי הני ריעי

21 ON THE STRENGTH OF THEM. THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: ONE SHALL NOT RETURN THEM IN EITHER CASE, AS THE COURT WILL ENFORCE PAYMENT [IN BOTH CASES].

כב אלא הא דתנן כותבין שטר ללוה אף על פי שאין מלוה עמו לכתחילה היכי כתבינהו ניחוש שמא כתב ללות בניסן ולא לוה עד תשרי ואתי למטרף לקוחות שלא כדין

22 GEMARA. With what kind of circumstances do we deal here? If the debtor admits [that the debt is due], then, even if there is a mortgage clause [in the documents], why shall [the finder] not return them, seeing that the debtor admits [that he has not paid the debt]?21

כג אמר רב אסי

23 And if the debtor does not admit, why should [the finder] return [the documents where they do not contain a mortgage clause]? Granted that [the creditor] may not exact payment from encumbered property,22 but he may certainly exact payment from unencumbered property!23 — Yes. [It is] indeed [a case] where the debtor admits his debt, but the reason [why the documents are not to be returned is this]: We apprehend that they might have been written to secure a loan [say] in Nisan24 whereas the loan was not granted until Tishri,25 so that [the lender] would come to seize unlawfully the property bought [by others from the borrower during that space of time]. But if so, we ought to entertain the same fear as regards all documents that come before us? — Ordinary documents are not suspect, but these are suspect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fact that they were not properly taken care of, and were thus lost, would show that no importance was attached to them. There is thus a prima facie case against their validity. ');">26 Then [the question arises] regarding the law that we learnt [in a Mishnah]: A note of indebtedness may be written for the borrower even when the lender is not present.27 How do we write it deliberately [seeing that] we ought to apprehend that the note might have been written with the intention of borrowing in Nisan, whereas the loan was not granted until Tishri, so that the lender would seize unlawfully the property [which others will have] bought [from the borrower during that space of time]!28 — Said R. Assi:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter