1)

(a)If Levy, after declaring a purse Hefker (to whoever acquires it first see Tosfos DH 've'Yatza'), lobs it into Reuven's house, and Shimon catches it before it lands the purse will belong to Reuven (because of the principle 'Avir she'Sofo la'Nu'ach, ke'Munach Dami' [when something enters Reuven's air-space, and is going to land in his property, it becomes his the moment it enters his air-space].

(b)Rava asked what the Din will be if Levi throws the purse with force through one doorway of Reuven's house, and it passes through the opposite doorway and falls into the street. This case might be different than the previous one because, seeing as the purse was not destined to land in Reuven's property, his Chatzer might not acquire it.

(c)One of Rava's Talmidim asked him why he did not resolve this She'eilah from Rebbi Aba bar Kahana, who rules that in the case of Matanah, if a deer is running through Reuven's field, he will acquire it despite the fact that it is running too fast for him to catch. To which Rava replied that this in only because the animal's feet are on the ground, whereas the purse is flying through the air.

2)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a Metzi'ah that one's young child, Eved or Shifchah or wife finds belongs to him.

(b)The source for this as regards one's ...

1. ... young daughter is 'Kol Shevach Ne'urim le'Avihah' (the principle which teaches us that a father has jurisdiction over his daughter whether she is a Ketanah or a Na'arah).

2. ... Eved or Shifchah is the Pasuk in Behar "ve'Hisnachaltem Osam", which teaches us that one even acquires the body of an Eved, how much more so his money.

3. ... wife a Takanas Chachamim because of Eivah (to avoid marital disharmony).

(c)A Metzi'ah that is found by ...

1. ... one's grown-up children, Eved Ivri or Amah Ivriyah belong to the finder, and so does one that is found by ...

2. ... his divorced wife who has not yet received her Kesuvah.

3)

(a)The reason Shmuel gives for the Takanas Chachamim that whatever a son finds belongs to his father is because he tends to hand over whatever he finds to him anyway.

(b)We extrapolate from Shmuel that, by Torah law, a Katan does not acquire what he finds. Otherwise, why would Chazal have issued such a Takanah

(c)We query this however from a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama rules that if someone hires ...

1. ... a poor man to work in his field the laborer's son is permitted to walk behind his father and collect Leket.

2. ... a part owner of the crops (who is considered a rich man) to do the work his son is not permitted to do so.

(d)Rebbi Yosi permits the latter as well.

4)

(a)Shmuel rules there like Rebbi Yosi. Considering that he just ruled that a Katan does not acquire min ha'Torah, how can he permit the son of a wealthy man to collect Leket, seeing as whatever the Katan now picks up, he picks up on behalf of his father? There would no problem if the Katan was Koneh min ha'Torah, since he personally, is considered an Ani.

(b)We reconcile Shmuel's two rulings by establishing his current ruling like the Tana Kama, even though he personally holds like Rebbi Yosi.

(c)The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Shevu'os holds that what a Katan finds is subject to theft because of Darkei Shalom. Rebbi Yosi says 'Gezel Gamur'.

(d)If, as Rav Chisda explains, Rebbi Yosi means 'Gezel Gamur mi'Divreihem', the difference between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yosi is that according to Rebbi Yosi, were someone to take the Metzi'ah from the Katan, Beis-Din would obligate him to return it (as if it was real Gezel), whereas according to the Tana Kama, they would not.

5)

(a)Based on Rav Chisda's interpretation of Rebbi Yosi (with which we assume, Shmuel concurs), we have now proved from Shmuel's ruling (like Rebbi Yosi in the Beraisa) that even according to Rebbi Yosi, a Katan does not acquire a Metzi'ah min ha'Torah, contradicting his previous ruling.

(b)So Abaye compares the case of Rebbi Yosi in the Beraisa to a field through which Nemushos (the last batch of poor people who have come from far away to collect Leket) have already passed.

(c)Chazal say that once the Nemushos have passed through the field, anyone is permitted to take the remaining Leket, because we assume that the rest of the poor having despaired of finding any more Leket in the field.

6)

(a)What Abaye therefore means is that, just as the poor despair of finding anything once the Nemushos have passed, so too, do they despair of finding anything when they see the laborer's children tagging behind them collecting Leket.

(b)Rav Ada bar Masna objects to this explanation however on the grounds that to encourage the poor to give up hope by permitting the children to collect Leket behind their father is like placing a lion outside one's field to prevent the poor from entering the field (which is prohibited).

(c)Rava (who agrees that a Katan cannot acquire an article from Hefker) explains Rebbi Yosi's concession to be a Takanas Chachamim, which the rest of the poor will be only too happy to accept, so that when they hire themselves out as laborers, their sons will be permitted to collect after them, too.

7)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Yochanan interprets 'Katan' and 'Gadol' in our Mishnah as a child who eats at his father's table and one who does not (irrespective of age), respectively.

(b)According to him ...

1. ... a Katan who does not eat at his father's table is permitted to keep the Metzi'os that he finds because a child acquires a Metzi'ah min ha'Torah.

2. ... even a Gadol who eats at his father's table is obligated to hand whatever he finds to his father to avoid Eivah (falling out with his father, who will argue that since he feeds his son, it is only proper that his son hands him whatever he finds.

8)

(a)The Beraisa rules that a worker who is employed to do whatever work his employer asks of him, picks up a Metzi'ah he must hand it to his employer.

(b)To reconcile our Mishnah with the Beraisa, Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan establish our Mishnah by an Eved Ivri who specializes in diamond-boring, which is far more lucrative than picking up Metzi'os. Consequently, in the event that he does find a Metzi'ah, he may keep it, but he must compensate his master for the work-loss.

(c)Rava establishes the case where the Eved Ivri picked up the Metzi'ah in the course of his work thereby causing his master no loss at all, in which case, he may keep it.

(d)To reconcile the Beraisa with our Mishnah, Rav Papa establishes it where his master hired him specifically to find Metzi'os, such as draining the river to find any fish that remain on the dry river-bed. Otherwise, he is entitled to keep whatever he finds, like the ruling of our Mishnah (and he remains obligated to compensate his master for the work-loss).

9)

(a)We also learned in our Mishnah that an Amah Ivriyah too, may also keep whatever she finds. The Tana cannot be referring to an Amah who is a Gedolah because then, what is she doing still working for her master? She ought to have gone free when she turned twelve.

(b)If on the other hand, she is a Ketanah, what she finds goes to her father (who must compensate the master for any work-loss). Consequently, when the Tana of our Mishnah permits her to keep her Metzi'os he must be speaking when she is a Ketanah whose father died after having sold her.

(c)Although Reish Lakish learned from a 'Kal va'Chomer' that an Amah Ivriyah goes free with the death of her father his 'Kal va'Chomer is disproved (in Kidushin).

(d)Our Mishnah, which permits her to keep what she finds (and does not mention anything about her Metzi'os going to her father) is not a further disproof of Reish Lakish's ruling because what the Tana may be coming to teach us is that what she finds does not go to her master, but not necessarily that she must not hand them to her father.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah also rules that a divorced woman may keep whatever she finds. As this stands, it is obvious. So we establish it in a case of Safek Gerushin (e.g. where her husband threw her a Get in the street and it is not sure whether the Get landed closer to her husband or to her), in which case her husband must give her another Get.

(b)And the Chidush is based on a statement by Rebbi Zeira Amar Shmuel who rules that her husband is obligated to continue to feed her.

(c)Nevertheless, the woman does not have to hand what she finds to her husband in exchange for her Mezonos (like she did when she was married) because the reason there was to avoid 'Eivah', a Sevara that does not apply to a Safek Megureshes, where we want to encourage Eivah, so as to force her husband to give her the Get.

11)

(a)In a case where someone finds a Shtar Chov, Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah draws a distinction between whether the Shtar contains Achrayus Nechasim (a clause rendering Meshubad all his property) or not.

(b)He rules that he is only permitted to return it if it does not contain Achrayus Nechasim, but not if it does.

(c)The Chachamim forbid returning it either way.

(d)The basis of their Machlokes is whether Beis-Din will claim from a Shtar which does not contain Achrayus Nechasim or not (this will be explained later in the Sugya.

12)

(a)We would have thought that if the debtor ...

1. ... admits that the found Shtar with Achrayus is valid the finder would be obligated to return it (and why not).

2. ... denies that the found Shtar without Achrayus is forged that it ought not to be returned (which is indeed the case).

(b)Our Mishnah speaks in the former case, where the debtor admits that the Shtar is valid and that he owes the money. Nevertheless, both Tana'im agree that a Shtar with Achrayus may not be returned to the creditor, because we are afraid that the Shtar is a Shtar Mukdam (a pre-dated Shtar), and that consequently, the creditor will claim from whoever purchased fields from the debtor between the date on the Shtar and that of the actual loan.

(c)We do not suspect every Shtar that comes before Beis-Din of being a Shtar Mukdam (post-dated) only here, because a Shtar that is lost is considered flawed (and carries with it a sort of stigma, rendering it Safek Pasul).

13)

(a)The Mishnah in Bava Basra permits the debtor to write a Shtar Chov even without the lender being present.

(b)The problem with that is why are we not afraid there too, that perhaps he will write the Shtar in Nisan, but that the loan will only take place in Tishri (like we are afraid here)?

(c)To reconcile the Mishnah in Bava Basra with our Mishnah, Rav Asi therefore establishes it by a Shtar Hakna'ah (exclusively), where the debtor specifically declares all his property Meshubad to the creditor as from today, irrespective of whether the loan takes place or not (though he will only hand him the Shtar in the event that it does).