• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

ז' תשרי תשעז“ Sunday, October 9 2016 ג יעא י“ בבא מצ OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT דעת אחרת Acquiring with a field (cont.) The factor of (1 אף על פי שרץ אחריהן ואין מגיען -R’ Ashi concludes his explanation concerning the differ .and acquiring a gift גט ence between receiving a R’ Yirmiyah in the name of R’ Yochanan asserts that T he Mishnah on 11a taught the halacha of acquiring an one’s field can acquire an animal only if he has the ability to animal which was running through one’s field. The conclu- , (משתמרת) reach the animal if he were to run after it. sion of the Gemara was that if the field was secure R’ Yirmiyah asked whether the same halacha applies to the animal can be acquired even if the owner of the field is one who is receiving a gift and R’ Abba bar Kahana ruled not standing next to it. However, in our Mishnah, which is the , (אינה משתמרת) that concerning a gift it is unnecessary for the recipient to be dealing with a field which was not secure able to reach the animal. owner can only acquire the animal which is running through Rava asked whether a house owner acquires a wallet that if he is standing next to his field. This was the consensus of is thrown in one window and flies out the other window. several of the Amoraim. Rav Pappa added that if the animal , (דעת אחרת מקנה) An attempt is made to answer this inquiry from the was being acquired from another person Mishnah. for example if it was given as a gift, it would not be necessary Rava rejects the proof from the Mishnah. for the recipient to stand next to the field. 2) MISHNAH: The Mishnah discusses when a man acquires On our daf, the Gemara notes another stipulation, and lost objects found by relatives or slaves. that is that the owner of the field can only acquire the animal 3) Objects found by a minor if he could run after the animal and catch it before it would Shmuel explains why Chazal enacted that a father ac- escape the boundaries of the field. R’ Yirmiya inquired quires the lost objects found by his minor son. whether this same detail is legally necessary when acquiring The Gemara challenges the inference from Shmuel’s ex- an animal as a gift from someone else. Perhaps the necessity planation that a minor does not, Biblically, acquire property. to be able to catch the animal is only required when acquir- when there is no one transferring — הפקר The contradiction is resolved by the Gemara. ing an animal from A contradiction is noted concerning R’ Yosi’s position it to the new owner. However, when the animal is being giv- about the capacity of a minor to acquire property Biblically. en as a gift there is a direct effort of presenting the animal to Abaye resolves the contradiction. the recipient. Is this type of transaction stronger so that the R’ Ada bar Masna rejects this resolution and Rava offers detail of having to be able to chase and catch the animal may an alternative explanation. not be needed? The Gemara concludes that, in fact, the re- It is noted that Shmuel’s earlier explanation is in contrast ceiver need not be able to chase after the animal and catch it . דעת אחרת with the explanation of the Mishnah given by R’ Chiya bar if there is a (זכיה ומתנה Overview...Continued on page 2) Rabbi Akiva Eiger points out that Rambam) ’and Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 243:21) rule unlike R ד:ט) Pappa, and that the owner must be standing by his field even דעת if the animal is being given as a gift. The advantage of REVIEW and Remember .is apparently not a factor for the recipient’s advantage אחרת .and Shulchan Aruch (ibid (גזילה י“ ז:י“ א) Is the Gemara able to prove from our Mishnah that one Yet, Rambam .1 could acquire a wallet that was thrown through one win- 268:4) rule according to R’ Yirmiya, that regarding a gift, the dow and emerged from the second window? recipient need not be able to catch the animal running is an advantage. What is דעת אחרת ,through the field. Here _________________________________________ the difference between standing next to the field and being גזל What is the significance of something described as .2 ? דעת אחרת able to catch the animal with regard to ? גמור מדרבנן _________________________________________ Rabbi Akiva Eiger notes that where the field itself is not cannot help to make the difference. The דעת אחרת ,When does an employer acquire the lost objects found by secure .3 his employee? owner must be standing nearby. Where the field itself is se- _________________________________________ cure, and the area can function to acquire other items situat- 4. What type of loan document is returned to the lender if can help alleviate the דעת אחרת ed within it, in this situation it is found? need for the owner to be able to run and catch the animal _________________________________________ before it would escape. בבא מציעא י ג“ —Number 1530 (Overview...continued from page 1) HALACHAH Highlight Abba. 4) Objects found by a Jewish slave Must a child own the esrog to fulfill the mitzv ah? The Mishnah’s ruling that objects found by a Jewish .slave belong to the slave is challenged מציאת בנו ובתו הקטנים...הרי אלו שלו Objects found by one’s minor son or daughter … they belong to him Three different answers to this question are presented. 5) Hebrew maidservant F rom our Gemara it is clear that lost objects found by a The Mishnah’s reference to a Jewish maidservant is chal- minor who is supported by his father belong to his father. Ni- lenged based on a ruling of Reish Lakish. 1 mukei Yosef cites opinions that maintain that even gifts that The challenge is dismissed since the opinion of Reish are given to such a minor immediately become the property of Lakish is rejected and the Gemara explains why our Mishnah his father. Moreover, even gifts a father gives his son revert does not refute Reish Lakish’s opinion. back to the father since the minor does not have the capacity 6) Objects found by one’s wife to acquire property for himself. This position is codified by The Gemara explains the novelty of the Mishnah’s ruling 2 Rema . This halacha, however, presents difficulties. Teshuvas concerning the right of a divorcée to keep objects that she 3 Shevet Halevi cites the Gemara Sukkah (46b) that states that finds. one should not transfer ownership of a lulav and esrog to a 7) MISHNAH: The Mishnah discusses whether one who minor on the first day of Sukkos since a minor has the capacity finds a lost document should return it. to acquire property but does not have the capacity to convey 8) Finding a lost document property. Based on what was previously explained we would The Gemara clarifies the exact circumstances of the con- have to assume that the Gemara refers to a minor who is not tract discussed in the Mishnah. supported by his father and thus the minor discussed has the The Gemara challenges this explanation of the contract capacity to acquire the lulav and esrog for himself. The diffi- under discussion in the Mishnah. culty that emerges from this is that a minor who is supported by his father cannot acquire the lulav and esrog that is given to tion of Magen Avrohom 5 who writes explicitly that a child him and thus he is unable to fulfill the mitzvah since a prereq- must own the lulav and esrog in order for him to fulfill the uisite for fulfilling the mitzvah on the first day of Sukkos is to mitzvah. It is evident from this discussion, concludes Shevet own the lulav and esrog that is used for the mitzvah. Halevi, that it is not necessary for the minor to own the lulav, The explanation for this, asserts Shevet Halevi, is that alt- and the mitzvah of chinuch is nonetheless fulfilled. .1 נמוקי יוסף ו. מדפי הרי“ ף hough the mitzvah of chinuch obligates a father to ensure that .2 רמ“ א חו“ מ סי “ע‘ ר סע ‘ב‘ his son fulfills the mitzvah in accordance with the standards .3 “שו ת שבט הלוי ח“ ח סי ‘ ב“קנ that would be applied to an adult, the restriction against using .4 טוי אבן חגיגה ו a borrowed esrog must not apply to a minor. This is consistent 4 .5 “מג א סי ‘ תרנ“ ח סק“ ח -with the opinion of Turei Even but is at odds with the posi vice with this,” the Rebbe asked the boy, When Rav Yissachar Dov of Belz, zt”l, “Do you know what these words mean?” once put tefillin on a bar mitzvah boy he STORIES Off the Daf After pausing for just an instant, the said the same thing but added a further Prior possession Rebbe explained, “We find in Bava explanation. “We find that everyone has a Metzia 12 that when someone loans his thought of sin each day and if not for the בית דין נפרעין מהן friend money, this creates a lien on all of fact that Hashems saves us, we would fall A certain chassid brought his son to the borrower’s property. No one can do into the hands of the evil inclination. Rav Tzvi Hirsch of Riminov, zt”l, to put anything to remove the lender’s right to When a person wakes up in the morning tefillin on the bar mitzvah boy for the first collect on his loan from the property.

Load more

  2

Copy Link