Bava Metzia 10: Labour Law, Acquisition by the Poor and Minor Girls

Today we learn some interesting facts about labour law in ancient Jewish societies.

• Jews serve only G-d, and not each other.  For that reason, we are taught that a hired labourer (paid a daily or hourly wage and not a salary) can back out of a job even if that job is only half-complete.  If this labourer has already been paid for the full day's work, he must pay back what is owed to the employer.  
• If a labourer picks up a found object while working for his employer, that found item is his to keep.  He owes the employer only the wages for the time spent acquiring that found object.  If the employer hired the labourer to find that item, then the item belongs to the employer.

A new Mishna teaches us that when a person falls onto a found object, he does not necessarily acquire that object.  The Gemara clarifies how we are to interpret ownership and personal space.
We learn:

• If two people come across an item at the same time, the one who grabs it first is entitled to keep it.
• Every person is said to 'possess' the area around him in a four-cubit radius.  If an ownerless item should fall within that area, the item belongs to that person.
• A person cannot use pe'a to acquire more pe'a (by throwing his share on top of more pe'a)

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about the rights of a minor girl and the acquisition of found items.  Reish Lakish says that a minor girl is not entitled to acquire an item nor is she entitled to the four cubits around her.  She cannot truly own a yard, and she cannot appoint a shaliach.  Rabbi Yochanan disagrees.  The two argue this point.  

A number of other interesting points are elucidated: 

• slaves and women who commit crimes and still owe money after they are divorced or emancipated must pay those debts themselves.
• a shaliach is not responsible for committing a sin if he had no choice but to transgress
• whether or not a woman accepts a get put in her hand by her husband, she is divorced.

It is evident that our rabbis struggled with the concept of ownership, particularly in the context of anyone other than grown, intellectually competent men.  Many of their judgements must have dealt with those more complicated cases.