Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The Torah says that a Chatzer acquires like a person's hand, but it can also acquire like a Shali'ach;

A Get is disadvantageous for her. Something disadvantageous may be done only in front of the person it harms;

A gift is advantageous. Something advantageous may be done for a person in his absence.

(Mishnah): If Reuven saw people chasing an Aveidah in his field... (and said... his field acquires).

(R. Yirmiyah): This is only if one could chase and catch it.

Question (R. Yirmiyah): What is the law regarding a gift?

Answer (R. Aba bar Kahana): Regarding a gift, even if one cannot catch it, the field acquires.

Question (Rava): If one threw a wallet through a Chatzer, and it left the Chatzer before landing (Rashi - he made it Hefker; Tosfos - he intended to give it for a gift), what is the law?

Is being suspended in the air, in a Reshus in which the object will not land, like resting on the ground, or not?

Answer (Rav Papa - Mishnah): If Reuven saw people chasing...

(R. Yirmiyah): This is only if one could chase and catch it.

Question (R. Yirmiyah): What is the law regarding a gift?

Answer (R. Aba bar Kahana): Regarding a gift, even if one cannot catch it, the field acquires.

Rejection (Rava): Something moving on the ground is different. Clearly, it is considered to be resting.

(Mishnah): Reuven receives Metzi'os found by his small (minor) sons and daughters, his male and female Kena'ani slaves, and his wife;

If his big (adult) sons or daughters, male or female (Yisre'elim) slaves, or his ex-wife (even if he didn't pay her Kesuvah yet) found a Metzi'ah, they keep it.

(Gemara - Shmuel) Question: Why did Chachamim say that Reuven receives Metzi'os found by his minor son?

Answer (Shmuel): When he finds it, he immediately brings it to his father. (He picked it up with intent to give it to him.)

Inference: This shows that Shmuel holds that a minor cannot acquire mid'Oraisa!

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven (a rich man) was hired to harvest, his son may walk after him and take Leket (Peros that falls during harvesting and must be left for the poor);

If Reuven receives a fixed percentage of the harvest, his son may not take Leket after him.

R. Yosi says, in either case his wife and children may take Leket after him.

(Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Yosi.

Summation of question: Granted, if a minor can acquire this is permitted because the child acquires for himself, then gives to his father;

But if a minor cannot acquire, he takes for his father. This should be forbidden, for his father is rich!

Answer #1: Shmuel explained the Tana of our Mishnah (why the father gets the Metzi'os), but Shmuel himself rules like R. Yosi.

Objection: R. Yosi holds that a minor cannot acquire mid'Oraisa!

(Mishnah): To promote Shalom, it is considered stealing to take the Metzi'ah of a child, lunatic or Cheresh;

R. Yosi says, it is absolute theft.

(Rav Chisda): It is absolute theft mid'Rabanan.

They argue about whether or not Beis Din forces one to return it to them. R. Yosi says that Beis Din forces him; Chachamim say that they do not.

Answer #2 (Abaye): Really, R. Yosi agrees that mid'Oraisa, minors cannot acquire;

He permits a worker's children to take the Leket because the poor people despair from it, just like they despair after Nemushos (old people who walk with canes, or the second wave of collectors) passes. They assume that the worker's children will take it all.

Objection: (Rav Ada bar Masnah): One may not force poor people to despair from taking what they are entitled to!

Answer #3 (Rava): Even though minors cannot acquire, Chachamim enacted to allow them to collect as if they can acquire.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The poor are happy with the law, for when they themselves are hired, their children can collect after them.

Shmuel argues with R. Chiya bar Aba.

(R. Chiya bar Aba): 'Small' and 'big' in the Mishnah do not refer to minor and adult;

Rather, any child fed by his father is called small. Any child who feeds himself is called big.

(Mishnah): What his male and female slaves (Yisre'elim) find, they keep.

Question: Their law should be like workers!

(Beraisa): A worker keeps what he finds. This is only if he was hired for a particular job, e.g. 'weed (or hoe) with me today';

If he said 'work for me today', the employer gets it.

Answer #1 (R. Chiya bar Aba): The case is, the slave makes holes in pearls (in order to thread them, a very high-priced labor). The master does not want the slave to stop working to pick up Metzi'os. (Therefore, the slave acted on his own behalf. He must compensate his master for the time he stopped working to take the object.)

Answer #2 (Rava): The case is, the slave picked it up while he worked. Since his labor was not diminished at all, he keeps it.

Answer #3 (Rav Papa): The Beraisa discusses a worker hired to pick up Metzi'os.

Question: Who would hire a worker for this?

Answer: A river overflowed its banks, taking many fish with it; the overflowed water dried up, leaving many dead fish.

Question: What is the case of the Amah (Yisraelis slave) in the Mishnah?

If she brought two hairs (after 12 years , and became a Na'arah), she is free!

If she is still a minor, if she has a father, he gets her Metzi'os. If her father died, that frees her!

(Reish Lakish): A Kal va'Chomer teaches that a Yisraelis slave goes free if her father dies.

Answer: (She is a minor, and her father died.) Reish Lakish was refuted.

Suggestion: Also our Mishnah refutes Reish Lakish!

Rejection: We could say that her father is alive (and he gets her Metzi'os). The Mishnah says 'they belong to them' only to teach that the master does not receive them.

(Mishnah): What his ex-wife finds...

Question: Obviously, she keeps what she finds!

Answer: The case is, she is divorced and not divorced (i.e. Safek divorced).

(R. Zeira): Wherever the Tana'im said 'divorced and not divorced', her husband must feed her.

Normally, Chachamim enacted that a man gets his wife's Metzi'os, to avoid enmity. Here, enmity is preferable (so he will divorce her absolutely)!

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If one finds a document saying that Reuven lent money to Shimon, if it has Achrayus (it puts a lien on Shimon's land), he may not return it, because Beis Din will make Shimon pay;

If it has no Achrayus, he should return it, because Beis Din will not make him pay.

Chachamim say, in either case he may not return it, because Beis Din will make him pay.

(Gemara) Question: What is the case?

If Shimon admits (that he owes the money), if it has Achrayus why not return it?

If he does not admit, if it has no Achrayus, why should one return it?

Granted, Reuven cannot collect from land that Shimon sold, but he can collect from Shimon's own property (and money)!

Answer #1: Really, Shimon admits. We are concerned lest the loan was given after the date on the document;

Reuven could use the document to illegally collect property that Shimon sold after the date but before the loan was given.

Question: If so, we should be concerned for this regarding all documents!

Answer: We are concerned only when something is amiss (e.g. the document was lost).