If one is watching an item and it begins to rot, should the shomer sell it or leave it and return it in whatever condition it is? There is a debate in the Mishna regarding this issue and amoraim disagree about the reason for the rabbis’ opinion. Rabbi Yochanan claims that the tannaitic debate is not relevant if the item has rotted. Two difficulties are raised against Rabbi Yochanan and are resolved. Is there a connection between this issue and whether or not one is allowed to go into a relative’s field who has been taken captive and work the field or not? Rav and Shmuel disagree about the relative using the property of the captive. Was there a tannaitic debate about this as well?
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch in honor of their youngest daughter Arianne Yael’s engagement to Brett Aiken and for a for a refuah shleima for Ilana Malka bat Aviva Tamar and Leah Maritza bat Raizel. “We are thrilled to share besorot tovot with our Hadran Family. We pray that the chuppah will take place בשעה טובה ומוצלחת and they should be zoche to build a בית נאמן בישראל.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch in honor of their youngest daughter Arianne Yael’s engagement to Brett Aiken and for a for a refuah shleima for Ilana Malka bat Aviva Tamar and Leah Maritza bat Raizel. “We are thrilled to share besorot tovot with our Hadran Family. We pray that the chuppah will take place בשעה טובה ומוצלחת and they should be zoche to build a בית נאמן בישראל.
Bava Metzia 38
וְהָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִשּׁוּם הֶפְסֵד הָרַמַּאי הוּא. אֶלָּא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְרַבָּנַן אִיצְטְרִיךְ, וְלֹא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei as he stated in the mishna: Due to the loss of the fraud? It is not due to the fact that the vessel will not remain intact. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that Rabbi Yosei would concede to the Rabbis in the instance where money was deposited. Rather, both of the cases are necessary according to the Rabbis. And although the first case could have been inferred from the second case, the tanna teaches the mishna employing the style of: Not only this but also that, i.e., the mishna began with an obvious example and continued with a more novel one.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ הֵן אֲבוּדִין – לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מוֹכְרָן בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה לַבְּעָלִים.
MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, even if it is lost due to spoilage or vermin, the bailee may not touch it, as it is not his. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He sells it before the court, as by doing so he is like one returning a lost item to the owner, since through its sale he prevents the owner from losing the value of his produce.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אָדָם רוֹצֶה בְּקַב שֶׁלּוֹ מִתִּשְׁעָה קַבִּים שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאָן הַמַּפְקִיד תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר.
GEMARA: What is the reason that the first tanna said that the bailee should not touch the produce? Rav Kahana says that it is based on the principle: A person prefers a kav of his own produce to nine kav of another’s produce. Consequently, despite the spoilage, the owner prefers that the bailee not touch the produce. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: We are concerned that perhaps the one who deposited the produce rendered it teruma and tithe for produce in another place, resulting in the buyer consuming produce that is teruma and tithe inappropriately.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״לְפִיכָךְ״.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, the bailee may not touch it, and therefore the owner may render it teruma or tithe for produce in another place. Granted, according to Rav Kahana, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: And therefore the owner renders them teruma. The concern that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe is not the reason why the bailee may not sell it, and the halakha that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe results from the halakha that the bailee may not sell it.
אֶלָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מַאי ״לְפִיכָךְ״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: הַשְׁתָּא דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן לָא נְזַבֵּין, דְּחָיְישִׁינַן – לְפִיכָךְ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר.
But according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, what is the meaning of the term therefore? According to his explanation, the fact that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe is the very reason why the bailee may not sell the produce. The Gemara explains: This is what the tanna is saying: Now that the Sages said that the bailee may not sell the produce due to the fact that we are concerned that perhaps the owner had rendered it teruma, the owner can be confident that the produce is still in the possession of the bailee. Therefore, the owner may render it teruma and tithe for produce in another place even ab initio.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בִּכְדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן, אֲבָל יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין.
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute in the mishna is in a case where the produce deteriorates at its standard rate of deterioration. But if the produce deteriorates at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, everyone agrees that the bailee sells it before the court.
אַדְּרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק – וַדַּאי פְּלִיגָא. אַדְּרַב כָּהֲנָא מִי לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא? כִּי קָאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא – בִּכְדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן קָאָמַר.
The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly disagrees with the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, as the concern that the owner might have rendered the produce teruma or tithe applies regardless of the rate of deterioration. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with the opinion of Rav Kahana? The Gemara answers: When Rav Kahana says that one prefers his own produce, it was in a case where the produce deteriorates at its standard rate of deterioration that he says it. When the rate of deterioration is accelerated, he would agree that the bailee sells the produce.
וְהָא רוֹצֶה בְּקַב שֶׁלּוֹ מִתִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ קָאָמַר! גּוּזְמָא בְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Kahana say: A person prefers a kav of his own produce to nine kav of another’s produce? This indicates that even if the rate of deterioration was accelerated, one prefers his own produce, as in the case he describes eight-ninths of the produce is lost. The Gemara answers: This expression is merely an exaggeration, and actually one prefers his own produce only when its rate of deterioration is standard.
מֵיתִיבִי: לְפִיכָךְ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא הֲווֹ לְהוּ יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן, וְזַבְּנִינְהוּ – וְקָא אָכֵיל טְבָלִים! יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן לָא שְׁכִיחַ.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Therefore, the owner renders it teruma or tithe for produce in another place. And let the owner be concerned that perhaps the produce deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, and the bailee sold it, in which case the owner would be eating untithed produce. The Gemara answers: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is uncommon, and the Sages do not issue decrees for uncommon cases.
וְאִי מִשְׁתַּכְחִי מַאי? מְזַבְּנִינַן לְהוּ? וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאָן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר! כִּי מְזַבְּנִינַן נָמֵי – לְכֹהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְרוּמָה מְזַבְּנִינַן לְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: And if it is found that more of the produce is missing than would be lost according to the standard rate of deterioration, what should be done? According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, do we sell it? But let us be concerned that perhaps the owner already rendered this produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place. The Gemara answers: Even when we sell the produce, it is to priests at the price of teruma that we sell it. Consequently, even if the owner rendered it teruma, it is consumed by priests and therefore there is no concern.
וּלְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק נָמֵי נְזַבְּנִינְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְרוּמָה? בְּהָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה סְבַר: יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן לָא שְׁכִיחַ מִידֵּי, וְכִי מִשְׁתְּכַח, לְקַמֵּיהּ הוּא דְּהָוְיָא יָתֵיר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן. אִי עָבֵיד לְהוּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר, מִקַּמֵּיה דְּהָווּ לְהוּ יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן עָבֵיד לְהוּ. הִלְכָּךְ, כִּי הָווּ לְהוּ יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן – נְזַבְּנִינְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְרוּמָה.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak as well, since the concern is that perhaps the owner rendered the produce teruma, let the bailee sell the produce to priests at the price of teruma. The Gemara answers: It is with regard to this that they disagree, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana holds: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is not common at all. And when it occurs that the produce deteriorates at the greater rate, it is only from now on that it is assumed that it became deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration. Therefore, if the owner had rendered the produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place, it is assumed that it was before it deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration that he did it. Therefore, when the produce deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, the bailee should sell the produce to priests at the price of teruma, as it may be teruma.
וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק סָבַר: יָתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן מִשְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחַ וְכִי הָווּ לְהוּ – לְאַלְתַּר הוּא דְּהָווּ לְהוּ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ נְזַבְּנִינְהוּ – זִימְנִין דְּקָדֵים וּמְזַבֵּין לְהוּ, וְכִי עָבֵיד לְהוּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מְקוֹם אַחֵר – לָא יָדַע דִּ[מְ]זַבְּנָא, וְקָא אָכֵיל טְבָלִים.
And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak holds: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is common. And when the produce became deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, it may be immediately that it became deteriorated to that extent. And if you say: Let us sell it, the concern is that at times the bailee will sell it early. And when the owner renders the produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place, he does not know that the bailee already sold the produce, and the owner eats untithed produce.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ וְהִרְקִיבוּ, יַיִן וְהֶחְמִיץ, שֶׁמֶן וְהִבְאִישׁ, דְּבַשׁ וְהִדְבִּישׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶם תַּקָּנָה, וּמוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מוֹכְרָן – מוֹכְרָן לַאֲחֵרִים וְאֵינוֹ מוֹכְרָן לְעַצְמוֹ.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who deposits produce with another and it rotted, wine and it fermented, oil and it putrefied, honey and it spoiled, the bailee may not touch them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He effects a remedy for these items and sells them in court. The baraita adds: And when he sells them, he sells them to others and does not sell them to himself, even for the same price, so no one will suspect that he bought it at a discount.
כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ: גַּבָּאֵי צְדָקָה בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם עֲנִיִּים לְחַלֵּק – פּוֹרְטִין לַאֲחֵרִים, וְאֵין פּוֹרְטִין לְעַצְמָן. גַּבָּאֵי תַמְחוּי בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם עֲנִיִּים לְחַלֵּק – מוֹכְרִין לַאֲחֵרִים, וְאֵין מוֹכְרִים לְעַצְמָן.
On a similar note, with regard to charity collectors, when they do not have poor people to whom to distribute charity, they change copper perutot that they collected for more valuable silver coins only for other people, but they do not change the coins for themselves, to avoid suspicion. If collectors for the charity plate collected ready-made food for the poor, at a time where there are no poor people to whom to distribute the food, they sell the food only to others but do not sell the food to themselves.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת פֵּירוֹת וְהִרְקִיבוּ, מַאי לָאו אֲפִילּוּ יָתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן? לֹא, בִּכְדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן. וְהָא יַיִן וְהֶחְמִיץ, שֶׁמֶן וְהִבְאִישׁ, דְּבַשׁ וְהִדְבִּישׁ – דְּיָתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן נִינְהוּ! שָׁאנֵי הָנֵי כֵּיוָן דְּקָם – קָם.
In any event, it is taught: Produce and it rotted. What, is it not referring even to a case where they all rotted at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration? The Gemara rejects this: No; it is referring to a case where they deteriorated at their standard rate of deterioration. The Gemara asks: But aren’t the cases of wine and it fermented, oil and it putrefied, and honey and it spoiled cases where these items deteriorated at a rate greater than their standard rate of deterioration, as there is a significant difference in the price of wine before and after fermentation, and in the price of oil before and after putrefaction? The Gemara rejects that proof: Those cases are different. Once they become spoiled, they remain spoiled but do not continue to deteriorate. Therefore, although their deterioration was significant, there is nothing gained by selling it.
שֶׁמֶן וְהִבְאִישׁ, דְּבַשׁ וְהִדְבִּישׁ –
On a related note, the Gemara asks: Concerning the cases of oil and it putrefied, honey and it spoiled,
לְמַאי חֲזוּ? שֶׁמֶן חֲזֵי לְגִלְדָּאֵי, דְּבַשׁ לִכְתִישָׁא דְגַמְלֵי.
for what use are they fit? According to the Rabbis, one sells them in court. Apparently, they must have some value. The Gemara answers: Oil is fit for tanners who would coat the hides with oil even if it had a foul odor. Honey it fit as a salve for a wound on the back of camels.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶם תַּקָּנָה וּמוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין. מַאי תַּקַּנְתָּא עָבֵיד לְהוּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְקַנְקַנִּים.
It is taught in the baraita: And the Rabbis say that the bailee effects a remedy for the spoiled products and sells them in court. The Gemara asks: What remedy does he effect for those products? Rav Ashi said: It is a remedy for the casks. Although the contents of the barrel are irreversibly spoiled, leaving it in the barrels will ruin the barrels.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? דְּמָר סָבַר: לְהֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה – חָשְׁשׁוּ, לְהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט – לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ. וּמָר סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט נָמֵי חָשְׁשׁוּ.
The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Meir agrees that when there is deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, the bailee should sell the deposit, with regard to what issue do Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara answers: The dispute is that one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds: The Sages were concerned for a significant loss, but the Sages were not concerned for an insignificant loss, like damage to the barrels. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The Sages were concerned even for an insignificant loss.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר יִמְכְּרֵם בְּבֵית דִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה לִבְעָלִים. אִתְּמַר, רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְרָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He sells it before the court, due to the fact that in doing so he is like one returning a lost item to the owner. It was stated that Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ya’akov, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.
וְהָא אַמְרַהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲדָא זִמְנָא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, חוּץ מֵעָרֵב, וְצַיְדָן, וּרְאָיָה אַחֲרוֹנָה.
The Gemara asks: But why is it necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan to issue that ruling specifically in this case? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan already say one other time that in general the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? As Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Every place where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught a ruling in our mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, except for the following three cases: The responsibility of the guarantor (Bava Batra 173b), and the incident that occurred in the city of Tzaidan (Gittin 74a), and the dispute with regard to evidence in the final disagreement (Sanhedrin 31a). By inference, in all other cases, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.
אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Abba and Rabba bar bar Ḥana are amora’im and disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Abba holds that there was no general ruling, and therefore a ruling was necessary in this case. Rabba bar bar Ḥana holds that Rabbi Yoḥanan issued a general ruling.
מִדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל נִשְׁמָע דְּמוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי. מִדְּרַבָּנַן נִשְׁמַע דְּאֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי.
The Gemara notes: From the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is learned that the court authorizes a relative, who is the heir apparent, to descend and manage the property of a captive. A bailee who sells rotting produce is like one returning a lost item to the owner; one who manages the property of a captive who is unable to do so himself should have the same status. From the statement of the Rabbis, who say that the bailee may not touch the rotting produce, it is learned that the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive.
וּמִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָכָא, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא כָלְיָא קַרְנָא, אֲבָל הָתָם הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין מוֹרִידִין. וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָכָא, אֶלָּא אִי כְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, אִי כְּרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק. אֲבָל הָתָם הָכִי נָמֵי דְּמוֹרִידִין.
The Gemara rejects this parallel: And from where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel states his opinion here only due to the fact that the principal, i.e., the rotting produce, is destroyed. But there, indeed, the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive, because if the land lies fallow, the land will remain intact, even if the captive will not profit. And perhaps the Rabbis state their opinion only here based either on the reason of Rav Kahana, that a person prefers his own produce, or on the reason of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, that there is concern that perhaps the owner designated the produce as teruma or tithe. But there, with regard to the captive’s property, those reasons do not apply, and indeed the court authorizes the relative to manage it.
לְמֵימְרָא דִּתְרֵי טַעְמֵי נִינְהוּ? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי. לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּחַד טַעְמָא הוּא? לָא, תְּרֵי טַעְמֵי נִינְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: Is this to say that they are two independent reasons for these two halakhot? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Shmuel says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive? Is it not due to the fact that there is one common reason for both halakhot? The Gemara rejects that reasoning: No, they are based upon two unrelated reasons, and Shmuel ruled the halakha in each case independently.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי. אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: תְּרֵי טַעְמֵי נִינְהוּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that the two halakhot are unrelated, as Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and Rav Naḥman says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Rather, learn from it that they are based upon two unrelated reasons. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that they are unrelated.
אִתְּמַר: שָׁבוּי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה, רַב אָמַר: אֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לִנְכָסָיו, שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לִנְכָסָיו.
The Gemara notes that it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to one who was taken captive. Rav says: The court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Shmuel says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive.
בְּשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמוֹרִידִין.
The Gemara limits the scope of the dispute: In a case where they heard that the captive died, everyone agrees that the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. The relative is the prospective heir and will tend to the land as if it were his own. If the captive returns, he will compensate the relative for his expenditures.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּשֶׁלֹּא שָׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת. רַב אָמַר: אֵין מוֹרִידִין, דִּלְמָא מַפְסִיד לְהוּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מוֹרִידִין, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר שָׁיְימִינַן לְהוּ כְּאָרִיס, לָא מַפְסֵיד לְהוּ.
When they disagree, it is in a case where they did not hear that the captive died and presumably he will return. Rav says: The court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive, lest he devalue the property. Since presumably the owner of the property is alive, the relative assumes that he will eventually be required to return the property to the owner. Therefore, he does not tend to the land as if it were his own but will farm the land to increase its short-term yield, at the expense of its long-term condition. And Shmuel says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Since the Master said: In any case where one works a field that is not his, we appraise his work as if he were a sharecropper, the relative will not devalue the property. It is in his best interest to tend to the land to ensure that he will receive his payment.
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְחָרָה אַפִּי וְהָרַגְתִּי אֶתְכֶם״ יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁנְּשׁוֹתֵיהֶם אַלְמָנוֹת וּבְנֵיהֶם יְתוֹמִים, אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהָיוּ נְשֵׁיכֶם וְגוֹ׳״?
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Eliezer says: By inference, from that which is stated: “My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you” (Exodus 22:23), I know that their wives shall be widows and their children orphans. Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And your wives shall be widows and your children orphans” (Exodus 22:23)? Why is this clause in the verse necessary?
מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנְּשׁוֹתֵיהֶם מְבַקְּשׁוֹת לִינָּשֵׂא וְאֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן, וּבְנֵיהֶן רוֹצִים לֵירֵד לְנִכְסֵי אֲבִיהֶן וְאֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן. אָמַר רָבָא: לֵירֵד וְלִמְכּוֹר תְּנַן.
The verse teaches an additional punishment, that the men will be killed with no witnesses. Their wives will seek to marry, and the courts will not allow them to do so without witnesses to their husbands’ deaths. And their children will wish to descend to their father’s property, to inherit it, and the courts will not allow them to do so. Apparently, the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Rava said: We learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow them to descend and to sell the land, but the court does authorize a relative to descend and manage the land.
הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, וּפַשְׁטַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מֵהָא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב עַמְרָם: דִּלְמָא לֵירֵד וְלִמְכּוֹר תְּנַן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא מִפּוּמְבְּדִיתָא אַתְּ, דִּמְעַיְּילִין פִּילָא בְּקוֹפָא דְמַחְטָא. וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דִּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם [וּבְנֵיהֶם] קָתָנֵי, מָה הָתָם כְּלָל לָא – אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּלָל לָא.
The Gemara relates: There was a similar incident in Neharde’a, and Rav Sheshet resolved the matter from this baraita and ruled that the court does not authorize a relative to descend to the property of a captive. Rav Amram said to him: Perhaps we learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow a relative to descend and to sell the land? Rav Sheshet said mockingly to him, employing a similar style: Perhaps you are from Pumbedita, where people pass an elephant through the eye of a needle, i.e., they engage in specious reasoning. But doesn’t the juxtaposition between their wives and their children in the verse teach that the meaning is similar in both cases? Just as there, with regard to the wives, it means that they may not remarry at all, so too here, with regard to the sons, it means that they may not descend to the property at all.
וּמוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הַיּוֹרֵד לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שָׁמַע שֶׁמְּמַשְׁמְשִׁין וּבָאִין, וְקָדַם וְתָלַשׁ וְאָכַל – הֲרֵי זֶה זָרִיז וְנִשְׂכָּר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן נִכְסֵי שְׁבוּיִין – הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו אוֹ אָחִיו אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַמּוֹרִישִׁין, הָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְשָׁמְעוּ בָּהֶן שֶׁמֵּת.
The Gemara comments: And the matter of whether the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who descends to the property of a captive and works his field, the court does not confiscate it from his possession. And furthermore, even if he heard that the owners are approaching and arriving, and the one who descended to the field preceded their arrival and uprooted and consumed produce that grew that year, that person is deemed diligent and he profits, as he received a return on the work that he invested. And these are the cases where there is captives’ property: Cases where one’s father, or brother, or one of those relatives who bequeaths him an inheritance went to a country overseas, and those in his locale heard that the relative died.
הַיּוֹרֵד לְנִכְסֵי נְטוּשִׁים – מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן נִכְסֵי נְטוּשִׁים: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו אוֹ אָחִיו אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַמּוֹרִישִׁין, הָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ בָּהֶם שֶׁמֵּת. וְאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהַנְּטוּשִׁים כִּשְׁבוּיִין.
In the case of one who descends to abandoned property, the court removes it from the possession of the one managing it. And these are the cases where there is abandoned property: Cases where one’s father, or brother, or one of those relatives who bequeaths him an inheritance went to a country overseas, and those in his locale did not hear that the relative died. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: I heard that the legal status of abandoned property is like that of the property of captives, and it is not confiscated from the possession of the one managing it. The dispute between the first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel parallels the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.
הַיּוֹרֵד לְנִכְסֵי רְטוּשִׁים – מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן נִכְסֵי רְטוּשִׁים – הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו אוֹ אָחִיו אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַמּוֹרִישִׁין כָּאן, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְהֵיכָן הָלְכוּ.
With regard to one who descends to forsaken property, the court removes it from his possession. And these are the cases where there is forsaken property: Cases where one’s father, or brother, or one of those relatives who bequeaths him an inheritance was here, and the relative does not know where they went. Everyone agrees that in these instances the court does not authorize a relative to descend to the property.
מַאי שְׁנָא הָנָךְ דְּקָרוּ לְהוּ ״נְטוּשִׁים״, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי דְּקָרוּ לְהוּ ״רְטוּשִׁים״?
The Gemara asks: What is different about one property, that it is called abandoned property? And what is different about the other property, that it is called forsaken property?
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
Bava Metzia 38
וְהָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִשּׁוּם הֶפְסֵד הָרַמַּאי הוּא. אֶלָּא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְרַבָּנַן אִיצְטְרִיךְ, וְלֹא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei as he stated in the mishna: Due to the loss of the fraud? It is not due to the fact that the vessel will not remain intact. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that Rabbi Yosei would concede to the Rabbis in the instance where money was deposited. Rather, both of the cases are necessary according to the Rabbis. And although the first case could have been inferred from the second case, the tanna teaches the mishna employing the style of: Not only this but also that, i.e., the mishna began with an obvious example and continued with a more novel one.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ הֵן אֲבוּדִין – לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מוֹכְרָן בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה לַבְּעָלִים.
MISHNA: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, even if it is lost due to spoilage or vermin, the bailee may not touch it, as it is not his. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He sells it before the court, as by doing so he is like one returning a lost item to the owner, since through its sale he prevents the owner from losing the value of his produce.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אָדָם רוֹצֶה בְּקַב שֶׁלּוֹ מִתִּשְׁעָה קַבִּים שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאָן הַמַּפְקִיד תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר.
GEMARA: What is the reason that the first tanna said that the bailee should not touch the produce? Rav Kahana says that it is based on the principle: A person prefers a kav of his own produce to nine kav of another’s produce. Consequently, despite the spoilage, the owner prefers that the bailee not touch the produce. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: We are concerned that perhaps the one who deposited the produce rendered it teruma and tithe for produce in another place, resulting in the buyer consuming produce that is teruma and tithe inappropriately.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״לְפִיכָךְ״.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who deposits produce with another, the bailee may not touch it, and therefore the owner may render it teruma or tithe for produce in another place. Granted, according to Rav Kahana, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: And therefore the owner renders them teruma. The concern that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe is not the reason why the bailee may not sell it, and the halakha that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe results from the halakha that the bailee may not sell it.
אֶלָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מַאי ״לְפִיכָךְ״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: הַשְׁתָּא דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן לָא נְזַבֵּין, דְּחָיְישִׁינַן – לְפִיכָךְ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר.
But according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, what is the meaning of the term therefore? According to his explanation, the fact that the owner may render the produce teruma and tithe is the very reason why the bailee may not sell the produce. The Gemara explains: This is what the tanna is saying: Now that the Sages said that the bailee may not sell the produce due to the fact that we are concerned that perhaps the owner had rendered it teruma, the owner can be confident that the produce is still in the possession of the bailee. Therefore, the owner may render it teruma and tithe for produce in another place even ab initio.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בִּכְדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן, אֲבָל יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין.
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute in the mishna is in a case where the produce deteriorates at its standard rate of deterioration. But if the produce deteriorates at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, everyone agrees that the bailee sells it before the court.
אַדְּרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק – וַדַּאי פְּלִיגָא. אַדְּרַב כָּהֲנָא מִי לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא? כִּי קָאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא – בִּכְדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן קָאָמַר.
The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly disagrees with the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, as the concern that the owner might have rendered the produce teruma or tithe applies regardless of the rate of deterioration. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with the opinion of Rav Kahana? The Gemara answers: When Rav Kahana says that one prefers his own produce, it was in a case where the produce deteriorates at its standard rate of deterioration that he says it. When the rate of deterioration is accelerated, he would agree that the bailee sells the produce.
וְהָא רוֹצֶה בְּקַב שֶׁלּוֹ מִתִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ קָאָמַר! גּוּזְמָא בְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Kahana say: A person prefers a kav of his own produce to nine kav of another’s produce? This indicates that even if the rate of deterioration was accelerated, one prefers his own produce, as in the case he describes eight-ninths of the produce is lost. The Gemara answers: This expression is merely an exaggeration, and actually one prefers his own produce only when its rate of deterioration is standard.
מֵיתִיבִי: לְפִיכָךְ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא הֲווֹ לְהוּ יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן, וְזַבְּנִינְהוּ – וְקָא אָכֵיל טְבָלִים! יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן לָא שְׁכִיחַ.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Therefore, the owner renders it teruma or tithe for produce in another place. And let the owner be concerned that perhaps the produce deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, and the bailee sold it, in which case the owner would be eating untithed produce. The Gemara answers: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is uncommon, and the Sages do not issue decrees for uncommon cases.
וְאִי מִשְׁתַּכְחִי מַאי? מְזַבְּנִינַן לְהוּ? וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא עֲשָׂאָן בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר! כִּי מְזַבְּנִינַן נָמֵי – לְכֹהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְרוּמָה מְזַבְּנִינַן לְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: And if it is found that more of the produce is missing than would be lost according to the standard rate of deterioration, what should be done? According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, do we sell it? But let us be concerned that perhaps the owner already rendered this produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place. The Gemara answers: Even when we sell the produce, it is to priests at the price of teruma that we sell it. Consequently, even if the owner rendered it teruma, it is consumed by priests and therefore there is no concern.
וּלְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק נָמֵי נְזַבְּנִינְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְרוּמָה? בְּהָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה סְבַר: יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן לָא שְׁכִיחַ מִידֵּי, וְכִי מִשְׁתְּכַח, לְקַמֵּיהּ הוּא דְּהָוְיָא יָתֵיר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן. אִי עָבֵיד לְהוּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר, מִקַּמֵּיה דְּהָווּ לְהוּ יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן עָבֵיד לְהוּ. הִלְכָּךְ, כִּי הָווּ לְהוּ יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן – נְזַבְּנִינְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים בִּדְמֵי תְרוּמָה.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak as well, since the concern is that perhaps the owner rendered the produce teruma, let the bailee sell the produce to priests at the price of teruma. The Gemara answers: It is with regard to this that they disagree, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana holds: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is not common at all. And when it occurs that the produce deteriorates at the greater rate, it is only from now on that it is assumed that it became deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration. Therefore, if the owner had rendered the produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place, it is assumed that it was before it deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration that he did it. Therefore, when the produce deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, the bailee should sell the produce to priests at the price of teruma, as it may be teruma.
וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק סָבַר: יָתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן מִשְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחַ וְכִי הָווּ לְהוּ – לְאַלְתַּר הוּא דְּהָווּ לְהוּ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ נְזַבְּנִינְהוּ – זִימְנִין דְּקָדֵים וּמְזַבֵּין לְהוּ, וְכִי עָבֵיד לְהוּ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר עַל מְקוֹם אַחֵר – לָא יָדַע דִּ[מְ]זַבְּנָא, וְקָא אָכֵיל טְבָלִים.
And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak holds: Deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration is common. And when the produce became deteriorated at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, it may be immediately that it became deteriorated to that extent. And if you say: Let us sell it, the concern is that at times the bailee will sell it early. And when the owner renders the produce teruma and tithe for produce in another place, he does not know that the bailee already sold the produce, and the owner eats untithed produce.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ וְהִרְקִיבוּ, יַיִן וְהֶחְמִיץ, שֶׁמֶן וְהִבְאִישׁ, דְּבַשׁ וְהִדְבִּישׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶם תַּקָּנָה, וּמוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מוֹכְרָן – מוֹכְרָן לַאֲחֵרִים וְאֵינוֹ מוֹכְרָן לְעַצְמוֹ.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of one who deposits produce with another and it rotted, wine and it fermented, oil and it putrefied, honey and it spoiled, the bailee may not touch them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He effects a remedy for these items and sells them in court. The baraita adds: And when he sells them, he sells them to others and does not sell them to himself, even for the same price, so no one will suspect that he bought it at a discount.
כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ: גַּבָּאֵי צְדָקָה בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם עֲנִיִּים לְחַלֵּק – פּוֹרְטִין לַאֲחֵרִים, וְאֵין פּוֹרְטִין לְעַצְמָן. גַּבָּאֵי תַמְחוּי בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם עֲנִיִּים לְחַלֵּק – מוֹכְרִין לַאֲחֵרִים, וְאֵין מוֹכְרִים לְעַצְמָן.
On a similar note, with regard to charity collectors, when they do not have poor people to whom to distribute charity, they change copper perutot that they collected for more valuable silver coins only for other people, but they do not change the coins for themselves, to avoid suspicion. If collectors for the charity plate collected ready-made food for the poor, at a time where there are no poor people to whom to distribute the food, they sell the food only to others but do not sell the food to themselves.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת פֵּירוֹת וְהִרְקִיבוּ, מַאי לָאו אֲפִילּוּ יָתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן? לֹא, בִּכְדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן. וְהָא יַיִן וְהֶחְמִיץ, שֶׁמֶן וְהִבְאִישׁ, דְּבַשׁ וְהִדְבִּישׁ – דְּיָתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן נִינְהוּ! שָׁאנֵי הָנֵי כֵּיוָן דְּקָם – קָם.
In any event, it is taught: Produce and it rotted. What, is it not referring even to a case where they all rotted at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration? The Gemara rejects this: No; it is referring to a case where they deteriorated at their standard rate of deterioration. The Gemara asks: But aren’t the cases of wine and it fermented, oil and it putrefied, and honey and it spoiled cases where these items deteriorated at a rate greater than their standard rate of deterioration, as there is a significant difference in the price of wine before and after fermentation, and in the price of oil before and after putrefaction? The Gemara rejects that proof: Those cases are different. Once they become spoiled, they remain spoiled but do not continue to deteriorate. Therefore, although their deterioration was significant, there is nothing gained by selling it.
שֶׁמֶן וְהִבְאִישׁ, דְּבַשׁ וְהִדְבִּישׁ –
On a related note, the Gemara asks: Concerning the cases of oil and it putrefied, honey and it spoiled,
לְמַאי חֲזוּ? שֶׁמֶן חֲזֵי לְגִלְדָּאֵי, דְּבַשׁ לִכְתִישָׁא דְגַמְלֵי.
for what use are they fit? According to the Rabbis, one sells them in court. Apparently, they must have some value. The Gemara answers: Oil is fit for tanners who would coat the hides with oil even if it had a foul odor. Honey it fit as a salve for a wound on the back of camels.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶם תַּקָּנָה וּמוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין. מַאי תַּקַּנְתָּא עָבֵיד לְהוּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְקַנְקַנִּים.
It is taught in the baraita: And the Rabbis say that the bailee effects a remedy for the spoiled products and sells them in court. The Gemara asks: What remedy does he effect for those products? Rav Ashi said: It is a remedy for the casks. Although the contents of the barrel are irreversibly spoiled, leaving it in the barrels will ruin the barrels.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? דְּמָר סָבַר: לְהֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה – חָשְׁשׁוּ, לְהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט – לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ. וּמָר סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט נָמֵי חָשְׁשׁוּ.
The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Meir agrees that when there is deterioration at a rate greater than its standard rate of deterioration, the bailee should sell the deposit, with regard to what issue do Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara answers: The dispute is that one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds: The Sages were concerned for a significant loss, but the Sages were not concerned for an insignificant loss, like damage to the barrels. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The Sages were concerned even for an insignificant loss.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר יִמְכְּרֵם בְּבֵית דִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמֵשִׁיב אֲבֵידָה לִבְעָלִים. אִתְּמַר, רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְרָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He sells it before the court, due to the fact that in doing so he is like one returning a lost item to the owner. It was stated that Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ya’akov, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.
וְהָא אַמְרַהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲדָא זִמְנָא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, חוּץ מֵעָרֵב, וְצַיְדָן, וּרְאָיָה אַחֲרוֹנָה.
The Gemara asks: But why is it necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan to issue that ruling specifically in this case? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan already say one other time that in general the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? As Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Every place where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught a ruling in our mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, except for the following three cases: The responsibility of the guarantor (Bava Batra 173b), and the incident that occurred in the city of Tzaidan (Gittin 74a), and the dispute with regard to evidence in the final disagreement (Sanhedrin 31a). By inference, in all other cases, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.
אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Abba and Rabba bar bar Ḥana are amora’im and disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Abba holds that there was no general ruling, and therefore a ruling was necessary in this case. Rabba bar bar Ḥana holds that Rabbi Yoḥanan issued a general ruling.
מִדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל נִשְׁמָע דְּמוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי. מִדְּרַבָּנַן נִשְׁמַע דְּאֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי.
The Gemara notes: From the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is learned that the court authorizes a relative, who is the heir apparent, to descend and manage the property of a captive. A bailee who sells rotting produce is like one returning a lost item to the owner; one who manages the property of a captive who is unable to do so himself should have the same status. From the statement of the Rabbis, who say that the bailee may not touch the rotting produce, it is learned that the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive.
וּמִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָכָא, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא כָלְיָא קַרְנָא, אֲבָל הָתָם הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין מוֹרִידִין. וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָכָא, אֶלָּא אִי כְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, אִי כְּרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק. אֲבָל הָתָם הָכִי נָמֵי דְּמוֹרִידִין.
The Gemara rejects this parallel: And from where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel states his opinion here only due to the fact that the principal, i.e., the rotting produce, is destroyed. But there, indeed, the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive, because if the land lies fallow, the land will remain intact, even if the captive will not profit. And perhaps the Rabbis state their opinion only here based either on the reason of Rav Kahana, that a person prefers his own produce, or on the reason of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, that there is concern that perhaps the owner designated the produce as teruma or tithe. But there, with regard to the captive’s property, those reasons do not apply, and indeed the court authorizes the relative to manage it.
לְמֵימְרָא דִּתְרֵי טַעְמֵי נִינְהוּ? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי. לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּחַד טַעְמָא הוּא? לָא, תְּרֵי טַעְמֵי נִינְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: Is this to say that they are two independent reasons for these two halakhot? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Shmuel says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive? Is it not due to the fact that there is one common reason for both halakhot? The Gemara rejects that reasoning: No, they are based upon two unrelated reasons, and Shmuel ruled the halakha in each case independently.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי. אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: תְּרֵי טַעְמֵי נִינְהוּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that the two halakhot are unrelated, as Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and Rav Naḥman says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Rather, learn from it that they are based upon two unrelated reasons. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that they are unrelated.
אִתְּמַר: שָׁבוּי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה, רַב אָמַר: אֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לִנְכָסָיו, שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לִנְכָסָיו.
The Gemara notes that it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to one who was taken captive. Rav says: The court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Shmuel says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive.
בְּשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמוֹרִידִין.
The Gemara limits the scope of the dispute: In a case where they heard that the captive died, everyone agrees that the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. The relative is the prospective heir and will tend to the land as if it were his own. If the captive returns, he will compensate the relative for his expenditures.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּשֶׁלֹּא שָׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת. רַב אָמַר: אֵין מוֹרִידִין, דִּלְמָא מַפְסִיד לְהוּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מוֹרִידִין, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר שָׁיְימִינַן לְהוּ כְּאָרִיס, לָא מַפְסֵיד לְהוּ.
When they disagree, it is in a case where they did not hear that the captive died and presumably he will return. Rav says: The court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive, lest he devalue the property. Since presumably the owner of the property is alive, the relative assumes that he will eventually be required to return the property to the owner. Therefore, he does not tend to the land as if it were his own but will farm the land to increase its short-term yield, at the expense of its long-term condition. And Shmuel says: The court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Since the Master said: In any case where one works a field that is not his, we appraise his work as if he were a sharecropper, the relative will not devalue the property. It is in his best interest to tend to the land to ensure that he will receive his payment.
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְחָרָה אַפִּי וְהָרַגְתִּי אֶתְכֶם״ יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁנְּשׁוֹתֵיהֶם אַלְמָנוֹת וּבְנֵיהֶם יְתוֹמִים, אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהָיוּ נְשֵׁיכֶם וְגוֹ׳״?
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Eliezer says: By inference, from that which is stated: “My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you” (Exodus 22:23), I know that their wives shall be widows and their children orphans. Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And your wives shall be widows and your children orphans” (Exodus 22:23)? Why is this clause in the verse necessary?
מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנְּשׁוֹתֵיהֶם מְבַקְּשׁוֹת לִינָּשֵׂא וְאֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן, וּבְנֵיהֶן רוֹצִים לֵירֵד לְנִכְסֵי אֲבִיהֶן וְאֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָן. אָמַר רָבָא: לֵירֵד וְלִמְכּוֹר תְּנַן.
The verse teaches an additional punishment, that the men will be killed with no witnesses. Their wives will seek to marry, and the courts will not allow them to do so without witnesses to their husbands’ deaths. And their children will wish to descend to their father’s property, to inherit it, and the courts will not allow them to do so. Apparently, the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. Rava said: We learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow them to descend and to sell the land, but the court does authorize a relative to descend and manage the land.
הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, וּפַשְׁטַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מֵהָא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב עַמְרָם: דִּלְמָא לֵירֵד וְלִמְכּוֹר תְּנַן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא מִפּוּמְבְּדִיתָא אַתְּ, דִּמְעַיְּילִין פִּילָא בְּקוֹפָא דְמַחְטָא. וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דִּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם [וּבְנֵיהֶם] קָתָנֵי, מָה הָתָם כְּלָל לָא – אַף הָכָא נָמֵי כְּלָל לָא.
The Gemara relates: There was a similar incident in Neharde’a, and Rav Sheshet resolved the matter from this baraita and ruled that the court does not authorize a relative to descend to the property of a captive. Rav Amram said to him: Perhaps we learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow a relative to descend and to sell the land? Rav Sheshet said mockingly to him, employing a similar style: Perhaps you are from Pumbedita, where people pass an elephant through the eye of a needle, i.e., they engage in specious reasoning. But doesn’t the juxtaposition between their wives and their children in the verse teach that the meaning is similar in both cases? Just as there, with regard to the wives, it means that they may not remarry at all, so too here, with regard to the sons, it means that they may not descend to the property at all.
וּמוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הַיּוֹרֵד לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ שָׁמַע שֶׁמְּמַשְׁמְשִׁין וּבָאִין, וְקָדַם וְתָלַשׁ וְאָכַל – הֲרֵי זֶה זָרִיז וְנִשְׂכָּר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן נִכְסֵי שְׁבוּיִין – הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו אוֹ אָחִיו אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַמּוֹרִישִׁין, הָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְשָׁמְעוּ בָּהֶן שֶׁמֵּת.
The Gemara comments: And the matter of whether the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who descends to the property of a captive and works his field, the court does not confiscate it from his possession. And furthermore, even if he heard that the owners are approaching and arriving, and the one who descended to the field preceded their arrival and uprooted and consumed produce that grew that year, that person is deemed diligent and he profits, as he received a return on the work that he invested. And these are the cases where there is captives’ property: Cases where one’s father, or brother, or one of those relatives who bequeaths him an inheritance went to a country overseas, and those in his locale heard that the relative died.
הַיּוֹרֵד לְנִכְסֵי נְטוּשִׁים – מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן נִכְסֵי נְטוּשִׁים: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו אוֹ אָחִיו אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַמּוֹרִישִׁין, הָלְכוּ לָהֶם לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ בָּהֶם שֶׁמֵּת. וְאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהַנְּטוּשִׁים כִּשְׁבוּיִין.
In the case of one who descends to abandoned property, the court removes it from the possession of the one managing it. And these are the cases where there is abandoned property: Cases where one’s father, or brother, or one of those relatives who bequeaths him an inheritance went to a country overseas, and those in his locale did not hear that the relative died. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: I heard that the legal status of abandoned property is like that of the property of captives, and it is not confiscated from the possession of the one managing it. The dispute between the first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel parallels the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.
הַיּוֹרֵד לְנִכְסֵי רְטוּשִׁים – מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן נִכְסֵי רְטוּשִׁים – הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו אוֹ אָחִיו אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַמּוֹרִישִׁין כָּאן, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְהֵיכָן הָלְכוּ.
With regard to one who descends to forsaken property, the court removes it from his possession. And these are the cases where there is forsaken property: Cases where one’s father, or brother, or one of those relatives who bequeaths him an inheritance was here, and the relative does not know where they went. Everyone agrees that in these instances the court does not authorize a relative to descend to the property.
מַאי שְׁנָא הָנָךְ דְּקָרוּ לְהוּ ״נְטוּשִׁים״, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי דְּקָרוּ לְהוּ ״רְטוּשִׁים״?
The Gemara asks: What is different about one property, that it is called abandoned property? And what is different about the other property, that it is called forsaken property?
Follow
