Baba Metsia 12a — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna One’s courtyard is included as a valid means of acquisition due to the fact that it acts as his hand; but it is no less …

One’s courtyard is included as a valid means of acquisition due to the fact that it acts as his hand; but it is no less effective than agency. Therefore, with regard to a bill of divorce, which is considered detrimental to the wife, one cannot transfer it to her by placing it in her courtyard in her absence, as one cannot act against the interests of a person unless it is in his presence. By contrast, with regard to a gift, which is beneficial for the recipient, one can give it to him by placing it in his courtyard in the recipient’s absence, as one can act in a person’s interest in his absence. § The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself. The mishna teaches: If one saw people running after a found ownerless animal, and said: My field has effected acquisition of this animal for me, it has effected acquisition of it for him. Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And this halakha is true only in a case where he would be able to run after them and catch them. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Does one acquire animals that are given to him as a gift in such a scenario? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana accepted the premise of the dilemma of Rabbi Yirmeya, and ruled that in the case of a gift one acquires the animals even if he would not be able to run after them and catch them. Rava raises a dilemma: If one threw a purse through this entrance of a house and it went through the house and exited through another entrance, what is the halakha? Does the owner of the house acquire the purse during the course of its flight? The dilemma is: Is an item in the airspace [avir] of a courtyard that will not eventually come to rest in the courtyard itself regarded as though it has come to rest, or is it not regarded as though it has come to rest? Rav Pappa said to Rava, and some say that it was Rav Adda bar Mattana who said this to Rava, and some say that it was Ravina who said this to Rava: Isn’t this the same as the halakha in the mishna? As it is stated: If one saw people running after a found ownerless animal, and said: My field has effected acquisition of this animal for me, it has effected acquisition of it for him. And Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And this halakha is true only in a case where he would be able to run after them and catch them. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Does one acquire animals that are given to him as a gift in such a scenario? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana accepted the premise of the dilemma of Rabbi Yirmeya, and ruled that in the case of a gift one acquires the animals even if he would not be able to run after them and catch them. Rava said to him: Are you saying that a purse flying through the air is comparable to an item that is rolling, i.e., moving on the ground? A rolling item is different, as it is regarded as though it has come to rest. At any given instant throughout its movement, the item rests on the ground. Therefore, the dilemma cannot be resolved from the mishna. With regard to the found item of one’s minor son or daughter, i.e., an ownerless item that they found; the found item of his Canaanite slave or maidservant; and the found item of his wife, they are his. By contrast, with regard to the found item of one’s adult son or daughter; the found item of his Hebrew slave or maidservant; and the found item of his ex-wife, whom he divorced, even if he has not yet given her payment of the marriage contract that he owes her, they are theirs.

▶ 💬 Guemara Shmuel says: For what reason did the Sages say that the found item of one’s minor son or daughter belongs to his father?…

Shmuel says: For what reason did the Sages say that the found item of one’s minor son or daughter belongs to his father? It is because the minor does not intend to acquire it for himself, as when he finds it, he runs with it to his father and does not retain it in his possession. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Shmuel holds that a minor does not have the capability of acquiring property for himself by Torah law? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who hires a salaried laborer to harvest his field, the son of the laborer may glean fallen stalks from behind the laborer like all poor people who have a right to the stalks left in the field. But if one hires a laborer as a sharecropper, whether the laborer receives one-half, one-third, or one-quarter of the produce, his son may not glean stalks after him, as the laborer himself is considered a partial owner of the field and is consequently not considered poor. Rabbi Yosei says: In both this case and that case the laborer’s son and wife may glean after him. And Shmuel says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Granted, if you say that a minor has the capability of acquiring property for himself, Shmuel’s opinion is understood, as when the son gleans stalks, he gleans them for himself and acquires them, and his father subsequently acquires them from him as a gift. Since the minor has no property of his own, his status is that of a poor person and it is permitted for him to glean stalks. But if you say that a minor does not have the capability of acquiring property for himself, then when he gleans the stalks, he gleans them for his father. Since his father is considered wealthy and is not entitled to the gleanings because he owns a portion of the produce, why may his wife and son glean stalks after him? The Gemara answers: In Shmuel’s explanation, Shmuel is stating the reason of the tanna of our mishna, but he himself does not hold accordingly. Rather, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a minor can acquire property for himself. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that a minor has the capability of acquiring property by Torah law? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Gittin 59b): With regard to the found items of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, i.e., lost items that they found, although they are not considered to be halakhically competent and are unable to acquire found items by Torah law, taking such items from them is considered robbery, by rabbinic law, for the sake of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery. And Rav Ḥisda says that Rabbi Yosei means that it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law. And the practical difference between the opinion of the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is that according to Rabbi Yosei, if the robber refuses to return the stolen item, it is appropriated by the judges and returned to its owner. In any event, it is evident from here that Rabbi Yosei also holds that a minor cannot acquire property for himself by Torah law. Rather, Abaye rejected the above explanation of Rabbi Yosei’s opinion in the baraita with regard to gleaning, and said: The reason that according to Rabbi Yosei a sharecropper’s son may glean after him despite the fact that he does not acquire property by Torah law is that in such a case the Sages rendered the field like one through which the last gleaners have walked. Once the poor people have finished gleaning stalks from a field, even wealthy people are permitted to collect whatever remains. In this case, since the sharecropper’s son is walking behind him, the poor people themselves dismiss the notion of gleaning in this field from their minds; they assume that the son of this sharecropper is gleaning for him and that they will therefore not find any gleanings in this field. Since the poor people themselves have finished taking stalks from the field, the sharecropper’s son can glean for his father. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Abaye: But how is it permitted for one to allow his son to follow him in the field, thereby causing all the poor people to leave? Is a person permitted to have a lion crouch in his field so that the poor people will see it and flee? Rather, Rava stated an alternative explanation:

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français Chmouel dit : Pour quelle raison les Sages ont-ils dit que l’objet trouvé d’un mineur, fils ou fille, appartient à son p…

Chmouel dit : Pour quelle raison les Sages ont-ils dit que l’objet trouvé d’un mineur, fils ou fille, appartient à son père ? Parce que le mineur n’a pas l’intention de l’acquérir pour lui-même, car lorsqu’il le trouve, il court avec vers son père et ne le garde pas en sa possession. La Guemara demande : Est-ce à dire que Chmouel tient que un mineur n’a pas la capacité d’acquérir un bien pour lui-même selon la loi de la Torah ? Mais n’est-il pas enseigné dans une baraita : Concernant celui qui engage un ouvrier salarié pour moissonner son champ, le fils de l’ouvrier peut glaner les épis tombés derrière l’ouvrier, comme tous les pauvres qui ont droit aux épis laissés dans le champ. Mais si l’on engage un ouvrier comme métayer, que l’ouvrier reçoive la moitié, le tiers ou le quart de la récolte, son fils ne peut pas glaner les épis après lui, car l’ouvrier lui-même est considéré comme un propriétaire partiel du champ et n’est donc pas considéré comme pauvre. Rabbi Yosseï dit : Dans ce cas comme dans celui-là, le fils et la femme de l’ouvrier peuvent glaner après lui. Et Chmouel dit que la halakha est conforme à l’avis de Rabbi Yosseï. Certes, si tu dis que un mineur a la capacité d’acquérir un bien pour lui-même, l’avis de Chmouel se comprend, car lorsque le fils glane les épis, il les glane pour lui-même et les acquiert, et son père ensuite les acquiert de lui comme un don. Puisque le mineur n’a pas de bien propre, son statut est celui d’un pauvre et il lui est permis de glaner des épis. Mais si tu dis que un mineur n’a pas la capacité d’acquérir un bien pour lui-même, alors lorsqu’il glane les épis, il les glane pour son père. Puisque son père est considéré comme riche et n’a pas droit aux glanures parce qu’il possède une partie de la récolte, pourquoi sa femme et son fils pourraient-ils glaner des épis après lui ? La Guemara répond : Dans l’explication de Chmouel, Chmouel énonce la raison du tanna de notre mishna, mais lui-même ne tient pas ainsi. Plutôt, Chmouel tient conformément à l’avis de Rabbi Yosseï qu’un mineur peut acquérir un bien pour lui-même. La Guemara demande : Et Rabbi Yosseï tient-il que un mineur a la capacité d’acquérir un bien par la Torah ? Mais n’avons-nous pas appris dans une mishna (Guittin 59b) : Concernant les objets trouvés d’un sourd-muet, d’un imbécile ou d’un mineur, c’est-à-dire des objets perdus qu’ils ont trouvés, bien qu’ils ne soient pas considérés comme halakhiquement compétents et qu’ils soient incapables d’acquérir des objets trouvés par la loi de la Torah, leur prendre ces objets est considéré comme un vol, par la loi rabbinique, pour le bien des voies de la paix. Rabbi Yosseï dit : C’est un vol complet. Et Rav Ḥisda dit que Rabbi Yosseï veut dire que c’est un vol complet par la loi rabbinique. Et la différence pratique entre l’avis du premier tanna et celui de Rabbi Yosseï est que selon Rabbi Yosseï, si le voleur refuse de rendre l’objet volé, il est confisqué par les juges et rendu à son propriétaire. En tout cas, il est évident d’ici que Rabbi Yosseï tient aussi qu’un mineur ne peut pas acquérir un bien pour lui-même par la loi de la Torah. Plutôt, Abaye rejeta l’explication ci-dessus de l’avis de Rabbi Yosseï dans la baraita concernant le glanage, et dit : La raison pour laquelle, selon Rabbi Yosseï, le fils d’un métayer peut glaner après lui malgré le fait qu’il n’acquiert pas de bien par la loi de la Torah est que dans un tel cas, les Sages ont rendu le champ comme un champ par lequel les derniers glaneurs sont passés. Une fois que les pauvres ont fini de glaner les épis d’un champ, même les riches sont autorisés à collecter ce qui reste. Dans ce cas, puisque le fils du métayer marche derrière lui, les pauvres eux-mêmes abandonnent l’idée de glaner dans ce champ de leur esprit ; ils supposent que le fils de ce métayer glane pour lui et qu’ils ne trouveront donc aucun épi dans ce champ. Puisque les pauvres eux-mêmes ont fini de prendre des épis du champ, le fils du métayer peut glaner pour son père. Rav Adda bar Mattana dit à Abaye : Mais comment est-il permis à quelqu’un de laisser son fils le suivre dans le champ, provoquant ainsi le départ de tous les pauvres ? Est-il permis à une personne de faire coucher un lion dans son champ pour que les pauvres le voient et fuient ? Plutôt, Rava énonça une explication alternative :

📜 Baba Metsia — 12a

📋 Références bibliques — Baba Metsia 12a

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant