Last week we read about a child who found a frog in a public park. As he was about to scoop it up, another child ran over and lifted it first. They asked their rebbi to decide who owned the frog. We discussed the parameters of kinyan dalet amos and its application in our case.

Q: Is this kinyan effective for minors? Is intent necessary for the kinyan to be effective?

A; Biblically, minors cannot buy or sell, even when lifting an object. However, Chazal enacted that minors who have reached the age of pe’utos, the age at which they understand how business works, can purchase and sell movable objects (C.M. 235:1). Most Poskim assert that the enactment does not allow minors to acquire found objects. The Rabbinic enactment was formulated to apply when there is another person involved in transferring ownership (daas acheres) but not in circumstances where we rely entirely on the comprehension of the minor (C.M. 243:15; cf. Shach 243:6).

Additionally, the enactment is limited to orphans that do not have guardians and are not financially supported by others (C.M. 235:2). However, out of consideration for peace (darkei shalom), it is prohibited to steal lost objects found by minors (C.M. 270:1).

The above are the parameters for the kinyan hagbahah (by picking up). Regarding kinyan dalet amos, Shulchan Aruch rules that female minors do have kinyan dalet amos (C.M. 268:4), although Rema adds (C.M. 243:23) that a female minor’s kinyan dalet amos is granted only when she does not have a father (cf. Shach 11, Nesivos 14). Male minors do not have kinyan dalet amos (C.M. 268:4) even for the sake of darkei shalom (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hefker 8; cf. Pischei Choshen Aveidah 9:[65]). Since your student is a minor, he does not have kinyan dalet amos even for the sake of darkei shalom.

The last issue requiring consideration is whether intent is necessary to utilize kinyan dalet amos. For example, if someone was ignorant of kinyan dalet amos and intended to acquire an object by lifting it, will kinyan dalet amos serve as a proprietary act even before he lifts that object? Many Poskim (Pischei Teshuvah 198:9, 268:1) differentiate between one who falls on a lost object to acquire that object with kinyan dalet amos (268:1) and one who was running toward a lost object stating his intent to acquire it by falling on it, in which case kinyan dalet amos is not effective.

The difference between these cases is that in the first case he intended to acquire the object at that moment. Even though he did not have a full understanding of kinyanim, since we know his intent was to acquire the object at that moment, kinyan dalet amos is effective even without specific intent for that kinyan. In the second case his intent was to acquire the object when he falls on it rather than as he approaches. Since he did not intend to acquire it at that moment kinyan dalet amos is not activated.

Furthermore, even if a person’s kinyan dalet amos could acquire objects for him without specific intent (Taz 268, cf. Rivash 345), when one knows the object is there and doesn’t intend to acquire it, kinyan dalet amos will not acquire it (see Tosafos, B.B. 54a; Shem Aryeh, C.M. 22; Imrei Yosher 2:72).

Therefore in your case, the halachah allows the second child to keep the frog. However, the prohibition of ani hamehapach (discussed last week) might still be taken into consideration for the child’s chinuch.