Siman 270

The finding of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor does not involve gezel by the strict law, because they do not have the legal capacity to acquire when there is no other mind transferring ownership to them. However, for the sake of the ways of peace, the sages, of blessed memory, said [Gittin 59b] that the finding belongs to them, and it is forbidden to take it from their hand. Since this is only for the sake of the ways of peace, therefore, if one transgressed and stole it from their hand, it is not collected by the beit din, but rather by the laws of Heaven. And this is specifically regarding a finding where there is no other mind transferring ownership; but regarding a gift, and certainly the wages of a minor that he earned and the like, it is absolute gezel and is collected by the beit din. See what I wrote in siman 243.

The find of his son and his daughter who are supported at his table, even though they are adults, belongs to their father. This matter was ordained by the sages because since he provides them with sustenance that he is not legally obligated to provide, they therefore ordained that their find shall be his. However, when the father dies and the daughters are sustained from the property of the orphans by the ordinance of the sages, as is written in Even HaEzer siman 112, the find does not belong to the orphans since they are obligated in their sustenance. A son who is not supported at his father's table, even if he is a minor, his find does not belong to the father. But regarding a daughter, as long as she is a ketanah or a naarah, such that the father has the authority to betroth her to whomever he wishes, her find belongs to the father so that he will not harbor animosity toward her when she does not hand over her find to him. The find of his wife was also ordained by the sages to belong to the husband because of animosity, as is written there in siman 84. Therefore, when she is in a state of doubtful divorce, even though her husband is obligated in her sustenance, as is written there in siman 92, nevertheless her find is hers because we are not concerned then about his animosity. The find of his Canaanite manservant or maidservant belongs to him, for whatever a slave acquires, his master acquires. But the find of his Hebrew manservant or maidservant is not his, and certainly the find of his hired laborer or his gleaner. Regarding the find of his Hebrew maidservant, who is only sold in her minority, if the father is alive, it belongs to the father, and if not, it is hers.

An orphan or another person who is supported at the table of others, his find belongs to himself. We do not say it is a fortiori from his son who is supported at his table, where the sages, of blessed memory, enacted that his find belongs to him, and certainly so regarding another person; for it is not so. For the concern of enmity is only relevant regarding his son, whom it is the father's way to feed constantly, and if the father does not feed him, no other person will feed him; in this case, it is certainly relevant to fear enmity if his find does not belong to him. But another person who is supported at the table of his fellow for free, such as an orphan and the like, there is no logic that his find should belong to the other [Tosafot Bava Metzia 12b], for the sages did not enact this regarding one who is fed for the sake of the mitzvah, for the payment in this case is not with his find, and his reward is great from God and not from his find, even with a close orphan such as a brother and the like.

One who gives a gift to a son who is supported at his father's table: if the son is an adult, his gift belongs to the son, for it was to him that he gave; and if he is a minor, it belongs to the father by default when the giver did not specify, for ordinarily the gift is not preserved in the hand of the minor if his father does not guard it for him, and certainly he gave it with the father's intent, and that which he gave to the minor was only in order to gladden him. But when he is not supported at his table, even with a minor, his gift is his own. And there is no difference between a son and a daughter, and with a na'arah, her gift is always her own, for she possesses understanding [see Ketzot HaChoshen].

One who obligated himself to support his son and daughter-in-law or his daughter and son-in-law at his table for such and such years, their finds do not belong to him, since he gives based on an obligation [Taz]. And it appears to me that when the obligation ends and he continues to give them sustenance, their finds belong to him, even those of his son-in-law and daughter-in-law, because regarding them enmity is applicable.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that those whose finds belong to him, the same applies if they profited in merchandise or in labor. Thus far his words. The author of the Levushim omitted this gloss, and his reason is clear, for we have not found anywhere that his handiwork is dependent upon a find; for regarding a wife there are two enactments: her handiwork belongs to her husband because of her sustenance, and her find because of ill-will. It is even more puzzling that the source of the law is from the Ittur in the name of the Yerushalmi, which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, cited at the end of siman 177, and there it refers to when the son profited from the household estate. This is also proven in the Yerushalmi, Bava Batra chapter 9, halacha 3, see there. There is one who brought a proof for this law from what our sages, of blessed memory, said [Bava Metzia 92b] that a father may stipulate regarding his son the laborer that he shall not eat during the time of his work [Shach]. But this is no proof, for there it is by reason of waiver; and in truth, who is to say to us that the profit belongs to the father? For our sages, of blessed memory, only said that in this case he does not transgress the prohibition of "do not muzzle." Also, that which our teacher, the Rema, concluded, and this is his wording: But if he dies, he does not bequeath the labor of one son to the other heirs. Thus far his words. And his source is from the Hagahot Mordechai, the first chapter of Bava Metzia, and there the question was regarding books that one of the sons wrote, and it is proven there as well that the entire business was from the household estate, as they were occupied with their father's property. Therefore, it appears to me that our teacher, the Rema, is also dealing with what they profited in their father's business, such as if they sold his merchandise or occupied themselves with his labor, for this is certainly so: everything they profited in his business, even though another person would have taken a fee for his exertion, they do not take it since they are supported at his table. But when they performed some business on their own, it does not belong to the father [and with this, the difficulty of the Netivot Mishpat is also answered].

The finding of a worker belongs to himself, and even if he did not designate for him a specific labor to perform, but rather said to him, "Work with me today," for he hired him for labor and not for findings. And all the more so if he designated for him a specific labor, such as if he said to him, "Hoe with me today" or "Weed with me today." But if he hired him to gather in the manner of a finding, such as if the waters of the river receded and he hired him to gather the fish that are in the ponds, behold, his finding belongs to the employer, even if he found a purse full of dinars, because everything is included in the category of finding and behold he hired him for this. And some say that the same law applies when he hired him without specification and shows him to gather in the manner of the fish of the river, he must do so for him, and then all his findings belong to the employer. And that which was said that the finding of a worker belongs to himself, this is when he hired him without specification and gave him labor, and during this he found a finding; but if at the beginning he commanded him to gather findings, for it is in his power to give him whatever labor the employer desires, it is as if he hired him from the beginning for findings [it appears to me, and see Sma, and it requires further study].