Bava Metzia - Daf 12
- אויר שאין סופו לנוח re: acquiring with chatzeir
Rava asked: זרק ארנקי בפתח זה ויצא בפתח אחר – If someone threw a purse in this doorway and it went out another doorway, does the homeowner acquire it? אויר שאין סופו לנוח – Is something in airspace in which it is not destined to come to rest כמונח דמי או לא – considered like it is at rest in that place or not? A proof was suggested to Rava: Rebbe Yochanan had taught that one only acquires an object or animal moving through his field if he can catch it before it leaves his field. Still, Rebbe Abba bar Kahana held that regarding a gift, he acquires it even if it will leave his field before he catches it. This proves that where someone is transferring an article to him, his chatzeir acquires it even if it will leave his chatzeir. Rava rejected the proof: מתגלגל קאמרת – you are saying a proof from a rolling object (or running animal)? שאני מתגלגל דכמונח דמי – A rolling object is different, because it is considered like it is at rest, since it is touching the ground.
- The find of a קטן belong to his father
The next Mishnah states: מציאת בנו ובתו הקטנים – The find of one’s minor son or daughter, as well as his עבד כנעני, and wife, belongs to him. The find of his adult children, עבד עברי, and divorced wife, belongs to them. Shmuel explained why a קטן’s find belongs to his father: שבשעה שמוצאה – because when he finds something, מריצה אצל אביו ואינו מאחר בידו – he quickly brings it to his father and does not let it delay in his hand. The Gemara says this proves that Shmuel holds: קטן לית ליה זכייה לנפשיה מדאורייתא – a minor does not have independent acquisition Biblically, only under Rabbinical law. Had his ability to acquire been Biblical, the above reason would not have been sufficient to give the find to his father.
The Gemara notes that Shmuel’s interpretation is in disagreement with Rebbe Chiya bar Abba, who said that "גדול" and "קטן" in the Mishnah do not refer to literal age, rather: גדול וסמוך על שלחן אביו זהו קטן –an adult who is dependent on his father’s table (i.e., is supported by him), is considered a “minor” regarding this Mishnah, and קטן ואינו סמוך על שלחן אביו זהו גדול –a minor who is not dependent on his father’s table is considered an “adult.”
- Machlokes about returning found loan documents, when the debtor admits
In the next Mishnah, Rebbe Meir says: מצא שטרי חוב – If one found debt documents, אם יש בהן אחריות נכסים – if there is a lien on property included in them, לא יחזיר – he may not return them to the creditor, שבית דין נפרעין מהן – because Beis Din will collect from them. If there is no lien, the documents may be returned, because Beis Din will not collect from them. The Chachomim say that the documents may not be returned, regardless of whether there is a lien provision in the documents. The Gemara wonders what the case is: if the debtor admits that the debt is owed, why should the documents not be returned when there is a property lien? Any collection would be legitimate!? If he denies the debt, why is it returned when there is no property lien? It will still be used to collect from the debtor himself!? It concludes that the case is כשחייב מודה – where the debtor admits the debt is owed, but it is not returned where there is a property lien, because we are concerned the שטר was written in Nissan (the recorded date) and not given until Tishrei (for example), leading Beis Din to unlawfully collect from those who purchased land from him before Tishrei. The Chachomim’s position is explained on the next Daf.
