Halachaהלכה

A Minor's Obligation in Returning Lost Property

Sources examine whether a child below bar mitzvah is obligated to return lost property (hashavas aveidah), addressing the minor's legal capacity, the distinction between personal obligation and parental responsibility, and the conditions under which a minor's acquisition of a found object differs from an adult's.

קָטָן אֵין לוֹ חצֵר וְאֵין לוֹ ד״א

7 sources · all verified

Opens as a working sheet — explore, annotate, and export.

What the sources say

The obligation of hashavas aveidah is grounded in the pasuk (Devarim 22:1-3) commanding every Israelite who sees a lost object not to ignore it but to return it, a commandment that the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Gezelah va'Aveidah 11:1-2) and the Shulchan Arukh (Choshen Mishpat 259:1-2) codify as a full Torah-level positive commandment paired with a prohibitory negative commandment against looking away.

The general halachic standing of a katan emerges from the Gemara: Bava Kamma 87a rules that a minor who injures others is exempt from liability precisely because he lacks full legal awareness, and Chagigah 2b groups the katan together with the deaf-mute and the imbecile as those who are not of sound mind (לאו בני דעה) and are therefore not counted among those obligated in certain mitzvot.

The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (Positive Commandments 74) addresses the question of whether a katan acquires a found object through his chatzer or his four amot, and concludes that, unlike a minor female, a katan does not acquire in this way — a passage that bears directly on the jurisprudence of a katan's relationship to found objects, though the source does not itself resolve the full question of his obligation in hashavas aveidah.

What the sources do clearly establish is the weight of the positive commandment for those who are obligated: the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Gezelah va'Aveidah 11:19) rules that even obeying one's father does not override the duty to return a lost object, since to comply would be to simultaneously nullify a positive commandment and transgress a negative one — underscoring how seriously the obligation falls on an obligated person, though the passages before us do not directly resolve whether that obligation applies to a katan who has not yet reached bar mitzvah.

Source 1 · Tanach
Verified

Deuteronomy 22:1-3

דברים כ״ב:א׳-ג׳

Deuteronomy 22:1-3

The Torah commands a person to return a brother's lost animal or object, not to ignore it, and to bring it to its owner. The verses establish the mitzvah's general obligation, while leaving the minor's precise legal status to the halakhic sources.

לֹֽא־תִרְאֶה֩ אֶת־שׁ֨וֹר אָחִ֜יךָ א֤וֹ אֶת־שֵׂיוֹ֙ נִדָּחִ֔ים וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ֖ מֵהֶ֑ם הָשֵׁ֥ב תְּשִׁיבֵ֖ם לְאָחִֽיךָ׃ וְאִם־לֹ֨א קָר֥וֹב אָחִ֛יךָ אֵלֶ֖יךָ וְלֹ֣א יְדַעְתּ֑וֹ וַאֲסַפְתּוֹ֙ אֶל־תּ֣וֹךְ בֵּיתֶ֔ךָ וְהָיָ֣ה עִמְּךָ֗ עַ֣ד דְּרֹ֤שׁ אָחִ֙יךָ֙ אֹת֔וֹ וַהֲשֵׁבֹת֖וֹ לֽוֹ׃ וְכֵ֧ן תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה לַחֲמֹר֗וֹ וְכֵ֣ן תַּעֲשֶׂה֮ לְשִׂמְלָתוֹ֒ וְכֵ֣ן תַּעֲשֶׂ֗ה לְכׇל־אֲבֵדַ֥ת אָחִ֛יךָ אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאבַ֥ד מִמֶּ֖נּוּ וּמְצָאתָ֑הּ לֹ֥א תוּכַ֖ל לְהִתְעַלֵּֽם׃ {ס}

If you see your fellow Israelite’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your peer. If your fellow Israelite does not live near you or you do not know who [the owner] is, you shall bring it home and it shall remain with you until your peer claims it; then you shall give it back. You shall do the same with their donkey; you shall do the same with their garment; and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow Israelite loses and you find: you must not remain indifferent.

Source 2 · Chazal
Verified

Bava Kamma 87a

בבא קמא פ״ז א — ד"ה חֵרֵשׁ

Bava Kamma 87a:8

The sugya discusses the legal status of a minor in relation to damages and other monetary obligations, including the principle that a minor is not fully liable in the ordinary adult sense. It is relevant as a foundational comparison for whether a katan's act creates enforceable obligations.

חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן פְּגִיעָתָן רָעָה, הַחוֹבֵל בָּהֶן – חַיָּיב, וְהֵם שֶׁחָבְלוּ בַּאֲחֵרִים – פְּטוּרִין.

The mishna continues: With regard to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, an encounter with them is disadvantageous. In other words, no favorable outcome is possible for someone involved in an incident with one of these people, since one who injures them is liable. But if they were the ones who injured others, they are exempt. This is because they lack awareness and are not responsible for their actions.

Source 3 · Chazal
Verified

Chagigah 2b

חגיגה ב׳ ב — ד"ה חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן כּוּ׳

Chagigah 2b:3

The passage teaches that a minor, along with an imbecile and a deaf-mute who neither hears nor speaks, is exempt from all mitzvot stated in the Torah because such individuals lack sound mind, though a person who is deaf but can speak or mute but can hear is obligated in mitzvot like any other person.

חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן כּוּ׳. קָתָנֵי חֵרֵשׁ דּוּמְיָא דְּשׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן: מָה שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן — דְּלָאו בְּנֵי דֵעָה, אַף חֵרֵשׁ — דְּלָאו בַּר דֵּעָה הוּא. וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כְּדִתְנַן: חֵרֵשׁ שֶׁדִּיבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר. הָא מְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר — חַיָּיב. אָמַר רָבִינָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רָבָא: חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּרְאִיָּיה וּבְשִׂמְחָה, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ הַמְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הָרְאִיָּיה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הָרְאִיָּיה, חַיָּיב בְּשִׂמְחָה. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ לֹא שׁוֹמֵעַ וְלֹא מְדַבֵּר, וְשׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן — פָּטוּר אַף מִן הַשִּׂמְחָה, הוֹאִיל וּפְטוּרִים מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה.

§ The mishna taught: Except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. The Gemara notes: By listing these three cases together the mishna is teaching that a deaf-mute is similar to an imbecile and a minor: Just as an imbecile and a minor are among those who are not of sound mind, so too the deaf-mute [ḥeresh] mentioned here is one who is not of sound mind. And this teaches us as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 1:2): The ḥeresh, whom the Sages discussed everywhere, is one who does not hear and does not speak, and therefore his mind is not lucid. It can be inferred from this that one who speaks but does not hear and one who hears but does not speak are obligated in mitzvot like any other person. Ravina said, and some say it was Rava who said: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: All are obligated in the mitzvot of appearance in the Temple and rejoicing during the pilgrim Festival by eating the sacrificial meat, except for a deaf person who speaks but does not hear and a mute person who hears but does not speak, each of whom is exempt from the mitzva of appearance. And even though he is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, he is obligated in the mitzva of rejoicing. But one who does not hear and does not speak, and an imbecile and a minor, each of these is exempt even from rejoicing, since they are exempt from all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah, as they are not of sound mind.

Source 4 · Rishonim
Verified

Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 11:19

משנה תורה, הלכות גזילה ואבידה י״א:י״ט

Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 11:19

Rambam addresses a minor who finds an aveidah and the practical handling of the object, including the concern that the item not be permanently lost from its owner. This passage is directly relevant to the distinction between the child’s personal obligation and adult supervision.

רָאָה אֶת הָאֲבֵדָה וְאָמַר לוֹ אָבִיו אַל תַּחְזִירֶנָּה יַחְזִיר וְלֹא יְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ. שֶׁאִם קִבֵּל מֵאָבִיו נִמְצָא בְּעֵת שֶׁקִּיֵּם מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל (שמות כ יב) (דברים ה טז) "כַּבֵּד אֶת אָבִיךָ" בִּטֵּל עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל (דברים כב א) "הָשֵׁב תְּשִׁיבֵם" וְעָבַר עַל (דברים כב ג) "לֹא תוּכַל לְהִתְעַלֵּם":

If a person sees a lost object and his father tells him "Do not return it," he should return it instead of obeying his father. For by obeying his father and fulfilling the positive commandment "Honor your father" Exodus 20:12, he nullifies the positive commandment "And you shall certainly return it," and transgresses the negative commandment "You may not ignore it."

Source 5 · Rishonim
Verified

Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 11:1-2

משנה תורה, הלכות גזילה ואבידה י״א:א׳-ב׳

Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 11:1-2

Rambam codifies the positive commandment to return lost property and the prohibition against ignoring it, describing the finder’s duty to care for the object and return it to its owner. The chapter provides the governing framework for analyzing a minor finder.

הֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵדָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב א) "הָשֵׁב תְּשִׁיבֵם". וְהָרוֹאֶה אֲבֵדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִתְעַלֵּם מִמֶּנָּה וֶהֱנִיחָהּ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב א) "לֹא תִרְאֶה אֶת שׁוֹר אָחִיךָ" (דברים כב א) "וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ מֵהֶם". וּבִטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. וְאִם הֱשִׁיבָהּ קִיֵּם מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה:

It is a positive commandment to return an object lost by a fellow Jew, as Deuteronomy 22:1 states: "And you shall certainly return it." A person who sees an object lost by a fellow Jew and ignores it, leaving it in its place, transgresses a negative commandment, as it states Ibid.:4: "Do not see your brother's ox... and ignore it." He also negates the fulfillment of a positive commandment. If he returns the object, he fulfills the positive commandment.

Source 6 · Rishonim
Verified

Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Positive Commandments 74

ספר מצוות גדול, עשין ע״ד

Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Positive Commandments 74

A minor does not acquire a found object through his courtyard or four cubits of space (unlike an adult, whose courtyard acquires for him as an agent would), because a minor cannot appoint an agent; therefore a found object acquires to him only when it reaches his hand directly.

מסקינן [שם] כדברי ר״ל ור״י משום רבי ינאי קטנה יש לה חצר ויש לה ד״א וקטן אין לו חצר ואין לו ד״א מפני שהחצר של קטנה מידה למדנו שכדרך שהיא מתגרשת בגט המגיע לידה כך מתגרשת בגט המגיע לחצרה שנאמ׳ ונתן לה מ״מ וכשם שיש לה חצר לעניין גט כך יש לה חצר לעניין מציאה וארבע אמותיו של אדם כחצרו לעניין מציאה. אבל האיש למדנו שחצרו קונה לו משלוחו כדרך ששלוחו קונה לו כך תקנה לו חצרו ואע״ג דדרשינן נמי שם ובפ׳ מרובה (בבא קמא דף ס״ה) ובפ׳ הזורק (גיטין דף ע״ז) בידו אין לי אלא ידו גגו וחצרו וקרפיפו מניין ת״ל אם המצא תמצא מ״מ [עיין בתוס׳ דף י׳ דלעיל בד״ה ואי] יש לחלק שתמצא בכל מקום שתמצא משמע ואפי׳ ביד שלוחו והקטן הואיל ואינו עושה שליח שהרי בפסחים וגיטין שכתוב שם שליחות איש כתיב בעניין כך אין חצירו ולא ד״א שלו קונין לו עד שתגיע מציאה לידו [כדיליף בקידושין דף מ״א

Source 7 · Acharonim
Verified

Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 259:1-2

שולחן ערוך, חושן משפט רנ״ט:א׳-ב׳

Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 259:1-2

The Shulchan Arukh codifies the prohibition of ignoring a lost object and the obligation to return it, including the basic rules governing a finder’s conduct. It is the central practical code for the general obligation.

הרואה אבידת ישראל חייב לטפל בה להשיבה לבעליה שנאמר השב תשיבם ואם נטלה ע"מ לגזלה ועדיין לא נתייאשו הבעלים ממנה עובר משום השב תשיבם לאחיך ומשום לא תגזול ומשום לא תוכל להתעלם ואפי' אם יחזירנה אח"כ כבר עבר על לא תוכל להתעלם נטלה לפני יאוש על דעת להחזירה ולאחר ייאוש נתכוון לגזלה אינו עובר אלא משום השב תשיבם המתין עד אחר יאוש ונטלה אינו עובר אלא משום לא תוכל להתעלם: בד"א במקום שהוא חייב להשיב משם ובמקום שראוי להסתפק בה באבידה ושתהא בענין שמוכח שהיא אבידה ושלא תהי' מדעת ושיהי' בה שוה פרוטה ושיש סי' בגופה או במקומ' ושהיה מטפל בה אם היתה שלו ושתהי' של מי שחייב להשיב אבידתו אבל אם חסר א' מכל אלו אינו חייב להשיב אבידתו:

Related sources· 4 found, not yet verifiedSign in to verify

Related sheets

Mitzvotמצוות

The Mitzvah of Shechicha: The Forgotten Sheaf

Sources explore the Torah obligation to leave behind accidentally forgotten sheaves of grain during harvest as a gift to the poor, including the biblical commandment, Talmudic definitions of what constitutes forgetting, Maimonidean codification, and the spiritual significance of this unique mitzvah fulfilled through unintentional action.

View Sources7 sources
Mitzvotמצוות

Honoring Parents in Jewish Law

Jewish sources explore the mitzvah of honoring one's father and mother, ranging from its biblical origins in the Torah through detailed Talmudic discussions and codifications in the Shulchan Arukh and other legal authorities. These sources examine both the theoretical foundations and practical applications of this fundamental commandment.

View Sources25 sources
Halachaהלכה

Compensation for Unsolicited Benefit in Property

Jewish law addresses when an owner must compensate another for improvements or benefits received without consent. The sources examine the principle of unjust enrichment (זה נהנה וזה לא חסר) through cases of unauthorized planting, enhancement of property, and the broader obligation to avoid retaining unearned benefit.

View Sources12 sources
Halachaהלכה

Geneivas Nefashos: Abduction Versus Sale

Sources examine whether one who kidnaps a fellow Israelite incurs the capital penalty of geneivas nefashos upon abduction alone, or only upon subsequent sale or use of the victim. The classical rabbinic sources present competing views on the precise moment liability attaches.

View Sources12 sources
Halachaהלכה

The Captive Woman as Moral Regulation

Sources examine the law of eishes yefas toar (the captive woman) as a halachic response to human impulse in wartime, emphasizing the Torah's regulatory framework—including waiting periods, conversion requirements, and protections against exploitation—rather than as permission for unrestrained conduct. Commentators across traditions interpret the law as a constrained concession that channels desire within ethical and legal boundaries.

View Sources20 sources
Halachaהלכה

Interrupting Torah Study for the Dead

These sources examine whether one must interrupt Torah study or work to accompany a deceased person to burial, and whether the presence of a professional burial society (chevra kadisha) exempts individuals from this obligation. The sources balance the competing values of Torah study, communal responsibility, and honoring the dead.

View Sources16 sources

Explore more