לזכות הורי שיחיו לברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיהם!!

לזכות ידי"נ הרב ר' חיים שרעק שליט"א לברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיו יחד עם כל בני ביתו!!   

Rebbe Akiva Eiger [דרוש וחידוש עמ' תקצ"ה] asked on the gemara's question "פשיטא" - that OF COURSE if one found an object in someone's wall it is split up between the finder and the בעל הבית. What is the פשיטא that they split it up? In his words:

תמוה מאוד, דמאי פשיטא הוא, הא אדרבה טעמא לא ידעינן דאמרינן חולקין ולא מהני תפיסת המוצא מספק כיון דליכא חזקת מרא קמא, ואם נימא כיון דהוא בחור הכותל הבעלים מקרי מוחזקים וכמ"ש הרא"ש פ"ק גבי איבעי' דזרק בפתח זה ויוצא בפתח אחר דהפקירו הבעלים וזכו בו אחרים מוציאים מידם ונותנים לבעה"ב, דכיון דליכא חזקת מר"ק זכה בו הבעה"ב מספק ונעשה הוא מר"ק, א"כ ממילא הכא מדינא להיות כולו של הבעה"ב. ומה"ט יש לעיין ג"כ גבי מצא בגל כיון דבשעה שהיה בגל אף שלא זכו הבעלים מטעם חצר, מ"מ עכ"פ כיון דהוא מונח בחצירו והוא ספק אם הוא של אבותיו והוי שלו או אם הוא של אמורים ולא זכה מטעם חצר כיון דאין סופו להמצא, זוכה בתפיסתו לטעון שהוא של אבות ונעשה מר"ק כמו באיבעי' דאין סופו להניח דאף דאנו דנין דלא מקרי קנין חצירו מ"מ עכ"פ תפוס לזכות בו מספק. וצריך לדחוק דאין סופו להמצא גרע ואין בחצר זה שם תפיסה עליו וצ"ל עכ"פ דינא דחלוקה קשה מאוד ומה פשיטותא הוא. 

To explain: Why should the finder not keep it since there is no חזקת מרא קמא? And if we say that since it is in the hole in the wall, the בעל הבית is considered מוחזק as the Rosh says with regard to the question in the first perek of someone who throws a wallet through a house  - is it as if it rested on the ground and the בעל הבית is קונה or not. The Rosh rules that since there is no מרא קמא the בעל הבית is קונה out of doubt and HE becomes מרא קמא. If so, here also the בעל הבית should become the מרא קמא by default. 

For the same reason, we can argue regarding the question of when an אבידה was found under a pile of rocks [the mishna says that the finder keeps it], since it was under a pile even though the owner of the property isn't קונה despite the fact that it was found in his courtyard, nevertheless since it was found in his courtyard and we are in doubt as to whether it belongs to his ancestors and he inherited it or if it belongs to the Emorites and he isn't קונה since אין סופו לנוח - it wasn't destined to be found. He should get to keep it because he can claim that maybe is belonged to his ancestors and he is the מרא קמא like in the question of the wallet thrown through the house. So even though maybe there was no קנין חצר, nevertheless he can acquire it out of doubt that MAYBE it is his. We have to explain that the case of אין סופו להימצא [the אבידה under the rocks] is worse than the case of the wallet and there is no claim for the בעל הבית that he can keep it. But the case of the אבידה in the wall is difficult. It should belong to the בעל הבית. What is the "פשיטות" of the gemara that we split it up???  So asked Rabban Shel Kol Yisrael Rebbe Akiva Eiger. 

Regarding his question from the ruling of the Rosh based on Bava Metzia [12a] that where the בעל הבית acquires מספק [out of doubt], he becomes the מרא קמא and תפיסה from him is not effective. So too, we should say the same thing regarding about someone who finds an אבידה under a pile of rocks or in a wall, that the בעל הבית acquires מספק because he can claim that maybe it belonged to his ancestors?! It would appear that the Rosh only said that when one acquires מספק he becomes the מרא קמא מספק in that case, because there is a ספק maybe he acquired it according to the צד in the gemara that אויר שאין סופו לנוח כמונח דמי - even though it is not destined to rest there, it is still as if it rested in that property. If that perspective is the correct one then the בעל הבית is זוכה in the object according to the laws of קנינים and thus he becomes מרא קמא מספק. And so wrote the Rosh [9b]:

"... הלכך אם א"ל משוך בהמה זו וקני כלים שעליה לא קנה הכלים במשיכת הבהמה ואפי' בכפותה כיון דבעיא לא איפשיטא אוקי ממונא בחזקת מרא קמא אבל במציאה ובהפקר אם אמר אני מושך בהמה זו לקנותה ואת הכלים שעליה קני. כיון דמספקא לן הרי הוא מוחזק מספק, ואם תפסה אחר מוקמי' לה בחזקת מרא קמא שהוא מוחזק בה מספק. ותפיסת ספק מיקריא תפיסה כנגד אחר שאין לו בה שום טענה. דעד כאן לא קאמר תפסו כהן מספק מוציאין אותו מידו אלא היכא דאיכא לאוקומי בחזקת מרא קמא אבל הפקר שיצא מחזקת מרא קמא תפיסת ספק מיקריא תפיסה ואין אחר מוציא מידו". 

 If one person says to another "do משיכה on this animal and acquire the כלים that are on it" he doesn't acquire the כלים because it is an unsolved query [whether such a kinyan is valid] and אוקי ממונא בחזקת מרא קמא - establish the money in the hands of the מרא קמא. But if he finds an animal [מציאה] or an ownerless animal [הפקר], and says "I am doing משיכה on this animal in order to acquire it and the כלים on top of it" - he acquires, since we are in doubt he gets to keep it מספק. And if someone else comes and snatches it from him we establish it as his, בחזקת מרא קמא who took a hold of  it מספק. This "תפיסת ספק" is called תפיסה against someone who has no claim on the object. When do we say that when a kohen does תפיסה מספק we take it away from him? When we can establish it בחזקת מרא קמא. But when it comes to הפקר that went out of the חזקת מרא קמא, in that case תפיסת ספק is called a תפיסה and nobody can take it away from him.   

Now in that case of הפקר, he is זוכה in the object out of doubt that maybe he performed a proper קנין. He has more power than the person who wants to take it away from him since he might have performed a valid קנין. But in the case of the object under the pile of rocks [or in the wall] there is no ספק קנין, because his חצר cannot acquire on his behalf, as the Rishonim explain - a חצר cannot acquire for a person if the object is not destined to be found. In that case, if someone is תופס he gets to keep it, because the owner of the courtyard never owned the object with a proper קנין.      

To summarize: Only when there was a proper קנין [or even ספק קנין] by one person do we say that תפיסה may not be done by another [like in the case of the wallet thrown through the house, הפקר or מציאה] but not when there was no proper קנין [like in the case of the אבידה found under the pile or rocks or in the wall].  

But now the question is why they divide the object found in the wall? The בעל הבית never had a proper קנין in the object so he can't be called מרא קמא. The finder now has the object in his possession, so how can we remove half of it from him and give it to the בעל הבית?? And even though we already said that תפיסה is only effective BEFORE the birth of the ספק or when he claims that it is definitely his which is lacking in these cases. That is only true when the מרא קמא has a proper קנין on the object but where he doesn't [such as in this case] those conditions aren't necessary. [That is only in a new wall - where it likely is his. But in an old wall where it have belonged to the Emorites, he can't claim it as his own, as the gemara says].

Maybe the answer is that each has a claim that weakens the claim of the other. The תופס can claim that he is holding on to the object while the בעל הבית can't prove he ever owned the object. The בעל הבית can say that even though he never had a proper קנין on the object, the fact that it was found on his property should be enough to weaken the claim of the תופס and merit him with half. 

וצ"ע! 

[עפ"י נתן פריו עמ' קמ"ו-קמ"ז]