Study Bava Metzia folio 12B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
עשו שאינו זוכה כזוכה, מאי טעמא – עניים גופייהו ניחא להו, כי היכי דכי אגרו לדידהו נלקוט בנייהו בתרייהו.
The rabbis 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.
ופליגא דרבי 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.
The Talmud comments: And Shmuel, in his above explanation of the Mishnah, disagrees with the opinion of R' Ḥiyya bar Abba. As R' Ḥiyya bar Abba says that R' Yoḥanan says: The word adult in the Mishnah 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 Mishnah. 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.
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״.
§ The Mishnah teaches: The found item of his Hebrew slave or female slave, it is theirs. The Talmud 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.