Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda both hold 'ha'Magbihah Metzi'ah la'Chavero, Lo Kanah Chavero' - because of the principle 'To'fes le'Ba'al-Chov be'Makom she'Chav la'Acherim, Lo Kanah' (one has no authority to claim on behalf of one creditor [or potential owner] at the expense of another).

(b) The Beraisa says that if an employee picks up a Metzi'ah, then, assuming he is employed ...

1. ... to dig or to weed shall we say - he may keep it (though he is obligated to compensate any time lost in the process of picking it up or putting it away.
2. ... for the day to do whatever is required of him - then it belongs to his employer.

(c) Rava asked Rav Nachman from the Seifa - which places what the employee finds in the Reshus of the employer, despite the fact that, by picking it up, he deprives others of the possibility of doing so; whereas according to Rav Nachman, he should not acquire it.

(a) When Rav Nachman answered Rava that an employee is different, because his hand is like the hand of his employer, Rava initially rejected it on the basis of a statement by Rav - who permits an employee to retract, even in the middle of the day (in spite of the fact that his employment expires only with night-fall).

(b) Rav Nachman reconciled his ruling with Rav, on the grounds that Rav's reason is based (not on the employer's total independence, as Rava understood, but) on the Pasuk in Behar "Ki Li B'nei Yisrael Avadim, Avadai Heim" - from which we Darshen "Avadai Heim", 've'Lo Avadim la'Avadim', and from which we learn that even an Eved Ivri, whose hands are certainly like the hands of his master, has the right to go free whenever he pleases (provided he repays his master the money he received). So logically, we extend this concession to an employee (provided he relinquishes the remuneration he has been promised).

(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan 'ha'Magbihah Metzi'ah la'Chavero, Kanah Chavero', and the reason that the Tana of our Mishnah permits Shimon to keep the article that he picked up at Reuven's request is - because Reuven did not say 'Z'chei Li', but 'Ten Li', implying that it would not belong to him until he received it from Shimon's hands.

(a) Our Mishnah says that if someone sees a Metzi'ah and falls on it - anyone is entitled to help himself to it.

(b) Resh Lakish quoting Aba Kohen Bard'la rules that the four Amos in which a person is standing acquire for him automatically - to avoid squabbling over ownership.

(c) The ramifications of this ruling are - that any article of Hefker that is lying within those four Amos are automatically his.

(a) The Mishnah in Pe'ah says that a poor man who threw Pe'ah that he had already acquired on some standing Pe'ah (or Leket or Shik'chah) in order to acquire it, has nothing (not even the Pe'ah that he already acquired and threw). If he threw his Talis on the standing Pe'ah to acquire it, the Tana rules that we take the Pe'ah away from him.

(b) Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef asked - that according to Resh Lakish, why does the poor man's four Amos not acquire it on his behalf anyway.

(c) We answer that the Mishnah speaks when the poor man did not specifically declare that he wishes the four Amos to acquire for him. This would normally not be necessary, and the reason that it is here, is - because by falling (or throwing his Talis) on it, he has revealed that he does not want to make use of the Takanas Chachamim, and for some reason, prefers to acquire it by falling on it.

5)

(a) Rav Papa does not require any such declaration. According to him, the Chachamim only issued the Takanah of four Amos in certain locations - in any public place, such as alleyways, main roads and the sides of the street, but not in the rich man's field.

(b) Indeed, the Torah granted the poor rights in the rich man's field - but those are only access rights (to enable him to get to the Pe'ah and to take it) and nothing more.

(c) Even though the Torah already gave him some rights in the field, the Rabbanan did not add the Takanah of four Amos there too, like they did in other domains - because they limited those rights to public areas, where every person already has the natural right to enter and to use it in the regular manner.

(a) Rav Ya'akov bar Idi asked the same Kashya on Rav Nachman as Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, but from our Mishnah (why if someone falls on a Metzi'ah, our Tana rules that he does not acquire it? Why do his four Amos not acquire it anyway?). Our Sugya follows the same pattern as in the previous case, only Rav Sheishes gives a similar answer to that of Rav Papa. Bearing in mind that the case of Metzi'ah is not talking about a field, he precludes a Reshus ha'Rabim from the Takanah of four Amos, confining it to an alley-way, or to the side of the street.

(b) The reason for this is - because a Reshus ha'Rabim normally contains crowds of people, and it is rare for a person to have four Amos to himself.

(a) According to Resh Lakish quoting Aba Kohen Bard'la, a Ketanah has neither the Din of Chatzer nor of four Amos which means - that if her husband throws a Get into her courtyard or within her four Amos if she is standing in the street, she is not divorced.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan says in the name of Rebbi Yanai - that she has both, in which case, either way, she is divorced.

(c) From the Pasuk "ve'Nasan be'Yadah" - we learn that if a husband places his wife's Get in her Chatzer, she is divorced.

(d) 'Yad' has connotations of Chatzer - because it sometimes means 'domain' (as in the Pasuk in Yeshayah "And he took all his land from his hand").

(a) We know that ...

1. ... a Ketanah has a 'Yad' - from the fact that she can be divorced, since it is only a Shotah (who keeps on coming back even after receiving her Get), who is precluded from divorce, but not a Ketanah who knows how to look after her Get.
2. ... a Ketanah cannot appoint a Sheli'ach - because the sources from which we learn Shelichus (Terumah and Korban Pesach) mention the word "Ish".
3. ... a Gedolah can appoint a Sheli'ach to receive her Get, from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Shilchah" (which contains two D'rashos, one for the man and one for the woman).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Im *Himatzei Simatzei* be'Yado" - that if someone acquires a stolen article by means of a Kinyan Chatzer, he is liable for theft.

(c) The problem we have with this if Chatzer stems from the Din of Shelichus is - that it seems to clash with the principle 'Ein Sheli'ach li'D'var Aveirah'.

(d) Ravina resolves this problem - by confining the principle to a Sheli'ach who is a 'bar Chiyuva' (subject to the prohibition, just like the Meshale'ach), precluding a Chatzer, which of course, is not.

(a) We learned in Bava Kama that a woman and an Eved who steal are not obligated to pay.

(b) This does not mean that, according to Ravina, if they steal on behalf of a man, *he* is obligated to pay - because in reality, they *are* obligated to pay (indeed, they will have to pay should they become divorced or set free), only, in the meantime, they are exempt because they have nothing with which to pay.

(c) Rav Sama resolves the above problem - by restricting the Din of 'Ein Sheli'ach li'D'var Aveirah' to a Sheli'ach who has the ability to choose whether to act or not (to preclude a Chatzer, which has no choice).

(a) One of the differences between Ravina's explanation and that of Rav Sama is a Kohen who asks a Yisrael to betroth a divorcee on his behalf (where the Sheli'ach is not obligated and therefore Patur [Ravina], but he is able to desist and Chayav [Rav Sama]). The other difference is - a woman who shaves off the Pei'os of a Katan. Here too, the woman is not a bar Chiyuva, but she is able to desist.

(b) The significance of the fact that the person whose Pei'os the woman was asked to cut off was a Katan - is purely practical (not Halachic), because a Gadol is unlikely to allow his Pei'os to be cut off.

(a) The Torah writes in Ki Seitzei (in connection with a Get) "ve'Nasan be'Yadah". "be'Yadah" means literally in her hand, whereas "ve'Nasan" comes to include - her Chatzer.

(b) This proves that Chatzer must be a Din in Yad (and not in Shelichus) - because we learn Shelichus from a different Pasuk (that of "ve'Shilach", "ve'Shilchah" as we explained earlier).

(c) What prompts us to make such a D'rashah from the word "ve'Nasan" is - that the Torah should otherwise have written "u've'Yadah Yitneuhu". "ve'Nasan be'Yadah" insinuates that "ve'Nasan" refers to "ve'Kasav Lah".

(d) Nevertheless, we will justify Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that a Ketanah has a Chatzer - by establishing his statement (not with regard to Get, as we originally thought, but) with regard to acquiring Metzi'os (which he learns from Get, even though we are learning Mamon from Isur).

(e) Resh Lakish holds that a Ketanah does not have a Chatzer - because he holds that one cannot learn Metzi'ah from Get.

(a) Others maintain that even Resh Lakish concedes that a Ketanah has a Din Chatzer, because we learn Metzi'ah from Yad. When he said '*Ketanah* Ein Lah Yad' - he really meant *Katan*, because he holds that we do not learn the Din of a Katan from that of a Ketanah.

(b) When, as a third alternative, we suggest that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish are not even arguing, what we mean is - that either Resh Lakish is speaking about a Metzi'ah, and Rebbi Yochanan, about Get, or that he is speaking about a Katan, and Rebbi Yochanan, about a Ketanah.