Yerushalmi Bava Metzia 1:5 ירושלמי בבא מציעא א׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: The find of his small son or daughter⁵⁷Even though in general קטן has to be translated as “underage”, the Mishnah might refer to children who do not earn their upkeep, irrespective of age., or of his Canaanite⁵⁸Of non-Jewish origin, whose person is his master’s property. Cf. Mishnah Qiddušin 1:3. male or female slave, his wife’s find⁵⁹It is part of the Ketubah contract that the wife’s earnings, including her finds, are the husband’s, since the latter is responsible for his wife’s expenses. This clause can be modified by contract if the wife earns her own money and renounces her claim to her upkeep by the husband (Ketubot 7:1, Note 9)., these are his. The find of his adult son or daughter, or of his Hebrew male or female slave⁶⁰A purely theoretical statement, Hebrew slavery having disappeared with the Babylonian exile; Cf. Mishnah Qiddušin 1:2., his wife’s find after he divorced her even though he did not yet pay her ketubah⁶¹Then he still is obligated to pay for her upkeep but has no claim to her earnings., these are their own.

HALAKHAH: “The find of his small son or daughter,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if they are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to the latter⁶²This is the only opinion registered in the Babli, 12b, and in Ketubot6:1, Note 21.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, a person cannot acquire a find for another⁶³Therefore, קטן in the Mishnah means “underage”; the finds of aduult children, 12.5 years for girls and 13 years for boys, belong to them even though they still live in their father’s house.. Rebbi [Hila]⁶⁴Word missing in L and editio princeps; added from E.. said: Not that Rebbi Simeon had formulated thus, but he had a problem with what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If a person hires a worker for any work, the latter’s finds belong to the employer. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, should the finds of a person who can resign at any moment belong to his employer⁶⁵The last two sentences are formulated similarly in Peah 4:6, Notes 108–110. The statement naturally is not applicable to a worker hired to scout for finds (Babli 12b).?

What is the difference between his Hebrew male and female slaves and his Canaanite male and female slaves? Rebbi Joḥanan said, since he is not empowered to change the employment of his male⁶⁶Lev. 26:39 prohibits to let the male Hebrew slave “work slave’s work”. This is interpreted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 1, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 160, Sifra Behar Pereq7(3) that the slave must be employed in the trade he exercised before being sold. or female⁶⁷Since she is underage, it is a question whether her find belongs to her father or her master. She probably should not have been mentioned in this connection; the use of the singular in the remainder of the sentence is correct, as compared to the plural used in the next sentence. Hebrew slave, that one’s find belongs to himself. Since he is empowered to change the employment of his male or female Canaanite slave, their find belongs to their master. They objected: He is not empowered to change the employment of his wife, but her find belongs to him. As we have stated there: “He forces her to work with wool,⁶⁸Mishnah Ketubot 5:6” he cannot force her to work any other material⁶⁹Cf. Ketubot 5:6, Note 163.. ⁷⁰An expanded version of this discussion is in Ketubot 6:1, Notes 17–21. Rebbi Abba bar Mina and Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: there is another reason in the case of the wife. What is another reason in the case of the wife? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because of quarrel⁷¹This is the only reason mentioned in the Babli, 12b, Ketubot40b. The husband should not be angry that he has to pay for all of his wife’s needs but cannot get his hands on her find.. Rebbi Yose said, lest she smuggle away her husband’s property and say: it is a find. They objected: before witnesses^72,If she finds an object before witnesses, there is no reason for R. Yose’s rule. In Ketubot, several similar instances are invoked.⁷³E has a longer text, but shorter than the analogous one in Ketubot, to explain the question:
מַה מַפְקָה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. מָצָאת בָּעֵדִים. מָאן דָּמַר מִפְּנֵי הַקְּטָטָה. אֵין כָּאן קְטָטָה. וּמָאן דָּמַר שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא מַבְרַחַת נְכָסִים מִשֶּׁל בַּעֲלָה וְאוֹמֶרֶת מְצִיאָה מָצָאתִי. הָא בָּעֵדִים לֹא אָֽסְרוּ זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי זֶה.
What is the difference between them? If she found it in the presence of witnesses. For him who says, because of quarrel, would there not be quarrel? For him who says, lest she smuggle away her husband’s property and say: I found a find, it follows that before witnesses they forbade one because of the other.? They forbade⁷⁴The wife’s find is handed over to the husband even in cases where it was not necessary.
The use of “forbade” seems inadequate here; one would expect “decreed” or “instituted” the rule. In Ketubot, no verb is mentioned in this sentence. R. Yose holds that the worst case has to be presumed in all situations since detailed investigation probably is impossible. one because of the other⁷⁴The wife’s find is handed over to the husband even in cases where it was not necessary.
The use of “forbade” seems inadequate here; one would expect “decreed” or “instituted” the rule. In Ketubot, no verb is mentioned in this sentence. R. Yose holds that the worst case has to be presumed in all situations since detailed investigation probably is impossible..

“His wife’s find after he divorced her.” Rebbi Yosana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A man who divorced his wife without paying her ketubah is liable for her upkeep until he gave her the last penny⁷⁵A similar rule, in the name of R. Isaac, is in Ketubot 6:2 (30c line 57) Note 22. Alfasi (Ketubot Chapter 13, # 390) proves that the Babli disagrees and limits the husband’s liability to the amount of the ketubah.. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “his wife’s find after he divorced her.⁷⁶If the husband had no financial responsibility for his ex-wife there would be no reason for him to claim her find.” Rebbi Hoshaiah said, the Mishnah is needed lest you say that because he is liable for her upkeep until he gave her the last penny, her find should be his.