Bava Metzia

[A person's] 'ground' [acts for him because] it is included in [the term] 'hand', and is no less effective than a [human] agency: In the case of a bill of divorcement, where the agency would work to her disadvantage, [we say that] one may not do anything to a person's disadvantage except when the person is present. But in the case of a gift, where the agency would work to the advantage [of the recipient, we say that] one may do something to a person's advantage when the person is absent. [To revert to] the above text: 'IF A MAN SEES PEOPLE RUNNING AFTER A LOST ARTICLE etc. R. Jeremiah said in the name of R. Johanan: This is provided that if he runs after them he can reach them. R. Jeremiah asked: What [is the law] in [the case of] a gift? R. Abba b. Kahana approved of the [distinction implied in the] question [and answered]: 'Even though if he runs after them and cannot reach them.' Now, Raba asked:  If one throws [away] a purse through one door and it falls through another door,  what is the law? [Do we say that even] when a thing does not come to rest in the air it is regarded as being come to rest there,  or not? — R. Papa said to Raba, (and according to some R. Adda b. Mattena said to Raba, while according to others Rabina said to Raba): Is not this the same as [the case in] our Mishnah: IF A MAN SEES PEOPLE RUNNING AFTER A LOST ARTICLE [etc.]. and R. Jeremiah said in the name of R. Johanan: 'This is, provided that if he runs after them he can reach them', and R. Jeremiah asked: 'What is the law in the case of a gift?' and R. Abba b. Kahana approved of the [distinction implied in the] question [and answered]: 'Even though if he runs after them and cannot reach them'?  [Raba] answered him: You speak of [a case where the objects were] moving [on the ground]: moving [on the ground] is different, as it is like resting.  MISHNAH. AN OBJECT FOUND BY A MAN'S SON OR DAUGHTER WHO ARE MINORS,  OR BY HIS CANAANITE BONDMAN OR BONDWOMAN,  OR BY HIS WIFE,  BELONGS TO HIMSELF. AN OBJECT FOUND BY HIS SON OR DAUGHTER WHO ARE MAJORS, OR BY HIS HEBREW MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT, OR BY HIS WIFE WHOM HE HAS DIVORCED, ALTHOUGH HE HAS NOT PAID [HER THE AMOUNT DUE TO HER ACCORDING TO] HER MARRIAGE-CONTRACT, BELONGS TO THE FINDER. GEMARA. Samuel said: For what reason has it been laid down that an object found by a minor belongs to his father? Because when he finds it he brings it hurriedly to his father  and does not retain it in his possession. Shall we then say that Samuel is of the opinion that a minor has no right to acquire anything for himself [and that this is] in accordance with Biblical law? Surely it was taught: If one hires a labourer [to work in his field] the son [of the labourer] may gather the gleaning behind [his father]?  [But if the labourer receives] a half or a third or a fourth [of the crops as wages] his son may not gather the gleaning behind him.  R. Jose says: In either case his son and his wife may gather the gleaning behind him.  And Samuel said: The halachah is like R. Jose. Now it is all well if you say that a minor has a right to acquire things for himself in accordance with Biblical Law. For then his son gathers the gleanings for himself, and the father acquires it from him. But if you say that a minor has no right to acquire anything for himself, then the son must gather the gleaning for his father; but his father is rich,  — why then may his wife and son gather the gleaning behind him? — Samuel merely gave the reason of the Tanna of our Mishnah, but he himself does not hold that view.  And does R. Jose hold the view that a minor has a right to acquire things for himself in accordance with Biblical law? Have we not learnt: An object found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor [may not be taken away from them as the law of] robbery is applied to them out of consideration for the public good.  R. Jose says: It is actual robbery.  And R. Hisda says: It is actual robbery because of an enactment by the Rabbis; the difference is as regards reclaiming the object by law?  — Therefore Abaye said: [The field] is treated as if the last gleaners had passed through it,  so that the poor themselves dismiss it from their minds, thinking that the son of that [labourer] would gather the gleaning.  R. Adda b. Mattena then said to Abaye: Is it permissible for a man to cause a lion to lie down in his field in order that the poor may see it and run away?  — Therefore Raba said: