Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 4, 2016 | 讙壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 39

Further discussions revolving around the issue of someone who abandons their land. 聽Can a relative take charge of his property? 聽It depends on is the relative a minor, is the person who abandoned the property a minor? 聽For what reason did they leave? 聽And various other factors.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

谞讟讜砖讬诐 讚讘注诇 讻专讞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛砖讘讬注转 转砖诪讟谞讛 讜谞讟砖转讛 讗驻拽注转讗 讚诪诇讻讗 专讟讜砖讬诐 讚诪讚注转谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 注诇 讘谞讬诐 专讟砖讛

The Gemara explains: Abandoned property [netushim]; this is referring to property that the owners vacated perforce. When it is written: 鈥淏ut the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow [untashtah]鈥 (Exodus 23:11), that is expropriation by edict of the King of the Universe. Forsaken property [retushim]; this is referring to property that the owners vacated of their own volition, as it is written: 鈥淎 mother was forsaken [rutasha] with her sons鈥 (Hosea 10:14), indicating that the mother was left with the sons, as all the men left.

转谞讗 讜讻讜诇诐 砖诪讬谉 诇讛诐 讻讗专讬住 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗砖讘讜讬讬谉 讛砖转讗 讝专讬讝 讜谞砖讻专 讛讜讛 诪讗讬 讚讗砖讘讞 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 讗专讟讜砖讬诐 讜讛讗 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪讬讚讜 拽转谞讬

A Sage taught with regard to the baraita discussing the case of one who descends to the property of another: And for all of them, the court appraises their work as one would appraise the work of a sharecropper. The Gemara asks: To which property in the baraita is this ruling stated? If we say it is stated with regard to captives鈥 property, now that the tanna stated that he is diligent and he profits, as he may take as much produce as he wishes, is it necessary to say that he can take a share of what he did to enhance the field? Rather, say that it is stated with regard to forsaken property. But isn鈥檛 it taught: The court removes it from his possession? The legal status of the one who labored in the field is not at all similar to that of a sharecropper.

讗诇讗 讗谞讟讜砖讬诐 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗 讗诪专 砖诪注转讬 砖讛谞讟讜砖讬诐 讻砖讘讜讬讬谉

Rather, say that it is stated with regard to abandoned property. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, don鈥檛 they say: The court removes it from his possession? And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, doesn鈥檛 he say: I heard that the legal status of abandoned property is like that of captives鈥 property, and the rights of the one who labored in the field are superior to those of a sharecropper.

讻砖讘讜讬讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讘讜讬讬谉 讻砖讘讜讬讬谉 讚讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪讬讚讜 讜诇讗 砖讘讜讬讬谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 讝专讬讝 讜谞砖讻专 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讻讗 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讗专讬住

The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the legal status of that property is in some ways like that of captives鈥 property but in other ways not like that of captives鈥 property. It is like that of captives鈥 property in that the court does not remove it from his possession. But it is not like that of captives鈥 property, as there, in the case of captives鈥 property, the one working the field is diligent and he profits from the produce he takes, while here, one appraises their work as one would appraise the work of a sharecropper.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讗讜转 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗砖转讜 讛讜爪讬讗 讛专讘讛 讜讗讻诇 拽讬诪注讗 拽讬诪注讗 讜讗讻诇 讛专讘讛 诪讛 砖讛讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讜诪讛 砖讗讻诇 讗讻诇

The Gemara asks: And what is different in this case from that which we learned in a mishna (79b): In the case of one who outlays expenditures to enhance his wife鈥檚 usufruct property, which belongs to his wife but whose profits are his for the duration of their marriage, if the marriage ends in divorce or his death and she reclaims the property, whether he spent much to enhance the property and consumed little and did not derive benefit commensurate with his investment, or whether he spent little and consumed much, the principle is: What he spent, he spent, and what he consumed, he consumed. His labor is not appraised like that of a sharecropper.

讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讗讜转 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗砖转讜 拽讟谞讛 讻诪讜爪讬讗 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗讞专 讚诪讬 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇驻住讚讬谞讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇驻住讚讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: This case is comparable only to that which we learned in a statement that Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rav 岣sda said: The legal status of one who outlays expenditures to enhance the usufruct property of his minor wife, whose father died and whose brother and mother married her off, is like that of one who outlays expenditures to enhance the property of another, as this is a marriage by rabbinic law and she can void the marriage by performing refusal. If the husband spent much to enhance the property and consumed little, his work is assessed like that of a sharecropper. Apparently, since he does not rely on the fact that her property will remain his, the Sages instituted on his behalf that he be reimbursed for his expenditures so that he will not devalue the property. Here too, the Sages instituted on behalf of the one who labored in the field that he be reimbursed for his labor, so that he will not devalue the property.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讛诐 讻讗专讬住 讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks with regard to the phrase written in the baraita: And for all of them, the court appraises their work as one would appraise the work of a sharecropper, what additional case does it serve to include, as apparently it applies only to property of those who abandoned it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讘讜讬 砖谞砖讘讛 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬讜 讬爪讗 诇讚注转 讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讘讜专讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻砖讘讜讬 讘讜专讞 诪讞诪转 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讞诪转 讻专讙讗 讛讬讬谞讜 诇讚注转 讗诇讗 讘讜专讞 诪讞诪转 诪专讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: For a captive who was taken captive, the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage his property. If he left of his own volition, the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage his property. And Rav Na岣an says his own statement: The legal status of one who flees is like that of a captive. The Gemara asks: One who flees for what reason? If we say that he flees due to a tax [karga] that he attempts to evade, that is the case of one who left of his own volition. Rather, the reference is to one who flees due to an allegation that he committed murder [meradin], and he flees to avoid execution. Therefore, his legal status is that of a captive.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讘讜讬 砖谞砖讘讛 讜讛谞讬讞 拽诪讛 诇拽爪讜专 注谞讘讬诐 诇讘爪讜专 转诪专讬诐 诇讙讚讜专 讝讬转讬诐 诇诪住讜拽 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 讜拽讜爪专 讜讘讜爪专 讜讙讜讚专 讜诪讜住拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜诇讜拽讬诐 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇讚讬拽谞谞讬 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: In the case of a captive who was taken captive and left in his field standing grain to be reaped, or grapes to be harvested, or dates to be cut, or olives to be picked, and the owner of the produce will incur significant loss if they are not harvested, the court descends to his property and appoints a steward to manage his property. And he reaps, and harvests, and cuts, and picks, and thereafter the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage his property. The Gemara asks: If that is an option, let the court always appoint a steward to manage the captive鈥檚 field. The Gemara answers: We do not appoint a steward [apoteropa] for the bearded, i.e., adults. A steward is appointed only for orphans.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽讟谉 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 讜诇讗 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 讜诇讗 拽专讜讘 诪讞诪转 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 拽讟谉

Rav Huna says: The court does not authorize a minor, even if he is an heir, to descend to the property of a captive. And the court does not authorize a relative who is an heir to descend to the property of a minor that has no one to tend to it. And the court does not authorize a relative due to a relative to descend to the property of a minor.

讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽讟谉 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 讚诇诪讗 诪驻住讬讚 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 拽专讜讘 诪讞诪转 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 讘讗讞讬 诪讗讬诪讗 讜诇讗 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讞讬 讗转讬 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬 讘讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: The court does not authorize a minor to descend to the property of a captive, lest he devalue the property. And the court does not authorize a relative due to a relative to descend to the property of a minor. The Gemara explains: It is a case where the minor has a paternal half-brother and that brother has a maternal half-brother. The concern is that the latter, who is not at all related to the minor who owns the field, will claim that he inherited the field from his brother. And the court does not authorize a relative to descend to the property of a minor. The concern is that since the minor does not protest at the appropriate time and assert that the property does not belong to his relative, that relative will come to assume presumptive ownership of the field.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘谞讻住讬 拽讟谉

Rava said: Learn from the statement of Rav Huna that one cannot assume presumptive ownership of the property of a minor. Even if one took possession of and used the property of a minor for three years, this does not indicate that he has presumptive ownership of the property. Rav Huna restricted the descent specifically of relatives to the property of a minor, indicating that those are not concerns when it is a non-relative who descends to manage the field. Apparently, the reason that there is no concern is that one cannot assume presumptive ownership of the property of a minor.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讚讬诇

And even if one continues to occupy the field after the minor reached majority, he does not assume presumptive ownership, as perhaps the minor was unaware that he is the field鈥檚 owner.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘讗讞讬 讚讗讘讗 讗讘诇 讘讗讞讬 讚讗诪讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讗讞讬 讚讗讘讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘讗专注转讗 讗讘诇 讘讘转讬 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讘讗专注转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 注讬讟讚讗 讗讘诇 注讘讬讚 注讬讟讚讗 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛

The Gemara comments: And we said only in the case of paternal brothers that the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a minor, as they are potential heirs. But in the case of maternal brothers we have no problem with it, as they are not potential heirs. And in the case of paternal brothers, we said that the court does not authorize a relative only with regard to land. But in the case of houses we have no problem with it, as there are neighbors who can testify that the house does not belong to those brothers. And with regard to land too, we said that it is only in a case where the minor鈥檚 father did not draft a document of division of the property that the court does not authorize a relative. But in a case where the minor鈥檚 father drafted a document of division, it generates publicity, and everyone knows which portion belongs to each of the brothers.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讞讬 讚讗讘讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讞讬 讚讗诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗专注转讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘转讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 注讘讬讚 注讬讟讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 注讬讟讚讗 诇讗 诪讞转讬谞谉

The Gemara concludes: But this is not so, as there is no difference whether they are paternal brothers and there is no difference whether they are maternal brothers; it is no different whether it is land, and it is no different whether it is houses; and it is no different whether he drafted a document of division, and it is no different whether he did not draft a document of division. We do not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a minor, to avoid that relative being regarded as the owner of the property.

讛讛讬讗 住讘转讗 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 转诇转 讘谞转讗 讗讬砖转讘讗讬 讗讬讛讬 讜讞讚讗 讘专转讗 讗讬讚讱 转专转讬 讘谞转讗 砖讻讬讘讗 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜砖讘拽讛 讬谞讜拽讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 诇讜拽诪讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬 讘讬讚讗 讚讗讞转讗 讚诇诪讗 砖讻讬讘讗 住讘转讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 谞讜拽诪讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讘讬讚讗 讚讬谞讜拽讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讘讗 住讘转讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽讟谉 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain old woman who had three daughters. She and one daughter were taken captive. Of the other two daughters, one died and left behind a minor son. Abaye said: What should we do in this case with the property of the old woman? If one suggests: Let us establish the property in the possession of the surviving sister, that is problematic. There is a concern that perhaps the old woman died in captivity, and if the old woman died, the minor inherits one-third of her property, and the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a minor. If one suggests: Let us establish the property in the possession of the minor, that is also problematic. There is concern that perhaps the old woman did not die, and the court does not authorize a minor to descend and manage the property of a captive.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讱 驻诇讙讗 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讛 诇讗讞转讗 讜讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇讬谞讜拽讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讙讜 讚诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇驻诇讙讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗

Abaye said: Consequently, half of the property is given to the surviving sister. If the captives died, she is the inheritor of half the property; if the captives are alive, this is a case where the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. And for the other half of the property, we establish a steward on behalf of the minor, as it is conceivable that he inherited the property. Rava said: Once we appoint a steward for half of the property, we appoint a steward for the other half of the property, and it remains under his stewardship until the state of the captives becomes known.

诇住讜祝 砖诪注讜 讚砖讻讬讘讗 住讘转讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讬诇转讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 诇讗讞转讗 讜转讬诇转讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讬谞讜拽讗 讜讗讬讚讱 转讬诇转讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 讚谞拽讗 诇讗讞转讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讚谞拽讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇讬谞讜拽讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讙讜 讚诪讜拽讬诐 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇讚谞拽讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 谞诪讬 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇讗讬讚讱 讚谞拽讗

Ultimately, they heard that that old woman died, and they did not hear the fate of the captive daughter. Abaye said: We give one-third of the property to the surviving daughter. And we give one-third of the property to the minor, as he inherits it from his grandmother by virtue of his deceased mother. And of the other one-third of the property, which belongs to the captive sister whose fate is unknown, we give one-sixth [danka] to the surviving sister, and for the other one-sixth, we appoint a steward on behalf of the minor, as perhaps the sister died and the property is his. Rava said: Once we appoint a steward for one-sixth of the property, we also appoint a steward for the other one-sixth of the property, until the fate of the captive sister is known.

诪专讬 讘专 讗讬住拽 讗转讗 诇讬讛 讗讞讗 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讜讙 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇讱

搂 The Gemara relates: Mari bar Isak, who was a wealthy and powerful man, had a brother whom he did not previously know, come to him from Bei 岣zai, which was distant from central Babylonia. His brother said to him: Divide the property that you inherited from our father and give half to me, as I am your brother. Mari said to him: I do not know who you are.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讱 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讻专 讬讜住祝 讗转 讗讞讬讜 讜讛诐 诇讗 讛讻专讛讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讬爪讗 讘诇讗 讞转讬诪转 讝拽谉 讜讘讗 讘讞转讬诪转 讝拽谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗讞讜讛 讗转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转 诇讬 住讛讚讬 讜讚讞诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 讗诇讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讝讬诇 讗谞转 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚诇讗讜 讗讞讜讱 讛讜讗

The case came before Rav 岣sda. He said to the brother: Mari bar Isak spoke well to you, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Joseph knew his brothers and they knew him not鈥 (Genesis 42:8). This teaches that Joseph left Eretz Yisrael without the trace of a beard, and he came with the trace of a beard. This proves that it is possible for brothers not to recognize each other. Mari bar Isak may be telling the truth when he claims he does not recognize you. Rav 岣sda said to the brother: Go bring witnesses that you are his brother. The brother said to him: I have witnesses, but they fear Mari bar Isak because he is a violent man. Rav 岣sda said to Mari bar Isak: You go bring witnesses that he is not your brother.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讚讬讬谞讬谞讗 诇讱 讜诇讻诇 讗诇讬诪讬 讚讞讘专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗转讜 住讛讚讬 讜诇讗 诪住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转专转讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬

Mar bar Isak said to him: Is this the halakha? Isn鈥檛 there a principle in these cases that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant? Rav 岣sda said to him: This is the way I judge you and all of your fellow violent people. Mari bar Isak said to him: Ultimately, if that is your concern, witnesses will come, and they will not testify in his favor. They will lie and testify in my favor. Rav 岣sda said to him: They will not perform two wrongs; they will not refrain from telling the truth and also testify falsely.

诇住讜祝 讗转讜 住讛讚讬 讚讗讞讜讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇驻诇讜讙 诇讬 谞诪讬 诪驻专讚讬住讬 讜讘讜住转谞讬 讚砖转诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讱 讚转谞谉 讛谞讬讞 讘谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 讜讛砖讘讬讞讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讛砖讘讬讞讜 诇讗诪爪注

Ultimately, witnesses came and testified that the person from Bei 岣zai was his brother. At that point, the brother said to Mari bar Isak: Divide and give me half of the orchards and the gardens that you planted since the death of our father as well. Rav 岣sda said to Mari bar Isak: He spoke well to you, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 143b): If one died and left adult and minor sons, and the adult sons enhanced the property, they enhanced the property, and the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is divided between the adult sons and the minor sons.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 39

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 39

谞讟讜砖讬诐 讚讘注诇 讻专讞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛砖讘讬注转 转砖诪讟谞讛 讜谞讟砖转讛 讗驻拽注转讗 讚诪诇讻讗 专讟讜砖讬诐 讚诪讚注转谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 注诇 讘谞讬诐 专讟砖讛

The Gemara explains: Abandoned property [netushim]; this is referring to property that the owners vacated perforce. When it is written: 鈥淏ut the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow [untashtah]鈥 (Exodus 23:11), that is expropriation by edict of the King of the Universe. Forsaken property [retushim]; this is referring to property that the owners vacated of their own volition, as it is written: 鈥淎 mother was forsaken [rutasha] with her sons鈥 (Hosea 10:14), indicating that the mother was left with the sons, as all the men left.

转谞讗 讜讻讜诇诐 砖诪讬谉 诇讛诐 讻讗专讬住 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗砖讘讜讬讬谉 讛砖转讗 讝专讬讝 讜谞砖讻专 讛讜讛 诪讗讬 讚讗砖讘讞 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 讗专讟讜砖讬诐 讜讛讗 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪讬讚讜 拽转谞讬

A Sage taught with regard to the baraita discussing the case of one who descends to the property of another: And for all of them, the court appraises their work as one would appraise the work of a sharecropper. The Gemara asks: To which property in the baraita is this ruling stated? If we say it is stated with regard to captives鈥 property, now that the tanna stated that he is diligent and he profits, as he may take as much produce as he wishes, is it necessary to say that he can take a share of what he did to enhance the field? Rather, say that it is stated with regard to forsaken property. But isn鈥檛 it taught: The court removes it from his possession? The legal status of the one who labored in the field is not at all similar to that of a sharecropper.

讗诇讗 讗谞讟讜砖讬诐 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗 讗诪专 砖诪注转讬 砖讛谞讟讜砖讬诐 讻砖讘讜讬讬谉

Rather, say that it is stated with regard to abandoned property. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, don鈥檛 they say: The court removes it from his possession? And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, doesn鈥檛 he say: I heard that the legal status of abandoned property is like that of captives鈥 property, and the rights of the one who labored in the field are superior to those of a sharecropper.

讻砖讘讜讬讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讘讜讬讬谉 讻砖讘讜讬讬谉 讚讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪讬讚讜 讜诇讗 砖讘讜讬讬谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 讝专讬讝 讜谞砖讻专 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讻讗 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讗专讬住

The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the legal status of that property is in some ways like that of captives鈥 property but in other ways not like that of captives鈥 property. It is like that of captives鈥 property in that the court does not remove it from his possession. But it is not like that of captives鈥 property, as there, in the case of captives鈥 property, the one working the field is diligent and he profits from the produce he takes, while here, one appraises their work as one would appraise the work of a sharecropper.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讗讜转 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗砖转讜 讛讜爪讬讗 讛专讘讛 讜讗讻诇 拽讬诪注讗 拽讬诪注讗 讜讗讻诇 讛专讘讛 诪讛 砖讛讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讜诪讛 砖讗讻诇 讗讻诇

The Gemara asks: And what is different in this case from that which we learned in a mishna (79b): In the case of one who outlays expenditures to enhance his wife鈥檚 usufruct property, which belongs to his wife but whose profits are his for the duration of their marriage, if the marriage ends in divorce or his death and she reclaims the property, whether he spent much to enhance the property and consumed little and did not derive benefit commensurate with his investment, or whether he spent little and consumed much, the principle is: What he spent, he spent, and what he consumed, he consumed. His labor is not appraised like that of a sharecropper.

讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讛讜爪讗讜转 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗砖转讜 拽讟谞讛 讻诪讜爪讬讗 注诇 谞讻住讬 讗讞专 讚诪讬 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇驻住讚讬谞讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇驻住讚讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: This case is comparable only to that which we learned in a statement that Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rav 岣sda said: The legal status of one who outlays expenditures to enhance the usufruct property of his minor wife, whose father died and whose brother and mother married her off, is like that of one who outlays expenditures to enhance the property of another, as this is a marriage by rabbinic law and she can void the marriage by performing refusal. If the husband spent much to enhance the property and consumed little, his work is assessed like that of a sharecropper. Apparently, since he does not rely on the fact that her property will remain his, the Sages instituted on his behalf that he be reimbursed for his expenditures so that he will not devalue the property. Here too, the Sages instituted on behalf of the one who labored in the field that he be reimbursed for his labor, so that he will not devalue the property.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖诪讬谉 诇讛诐 讻讗专讬住 讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks with regard to the phrase written in the baraita: And for all of them, the court appraises their work as one would appraise the work of a sharecropper, what additional case does it serve to include, as apparently it applies only to property of those who abandoned it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讘讜讬 砖谞砖讘讛 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬讜 讬爪讗 诇讚注转 讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讘讜专讞 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻砖讘讜讬 讘讜专讞 诪讞诪转 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讞诪转 讻专讙讗 讛讬讬谞讜 诇讚注转 讗诇讗 讘讜专讞 诪讞诪转 诪专讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: For a captive who was taken captive, the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage his property. If he left of his own volition, the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage his property. And Rav Na岣an says his own statement: The legal status of one who flees is like that of a captive. The Gemara asks: One who flees for what reason? If we say that he flees due to a tax [karga] that he attempts to evade, that is the case of one who left of his own volition. Rather, the reference is to one who flees due to an allegation that he committed murder [meradin], and he flees to avoid execution. Therefore, his legal status is that of a captive.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讘讜讬 砖谞砖讘讛 讜讛谞讬讞 拽诪讛 诇拽爪讜专 注谞讘讬诐 诇讘爪讜专 转诪专讬诐 诇讙讚讜专 讝讬转讬诐 诇诪住讜拽 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 讜拽讜爪专 讜讘讜爪专 讜讙讜讚专 讜诪讜住拽 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜诇讜拽讬诐 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇讚讬拽谞谞讬 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: In the case of a captive who was taken captive and left in his field standing grain to be reaped, or grapes to be harvested, or dates to be cut, or olives to be picked, and the owner of the produce will incur significant loss if they are not harvested, the court descends to his property and appoints a steward to manage his property. And he reaps, and harvests, and cuts, and picks, and thereafter the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage his property. The Gemara asks: If that is an option, let the court always appoint a steward to manage the captive鈥檚 field. The Gemara answers: We do not appoint a steward [apoteropa] for the bearded, i.e., adults. A steward is appointed only for orphans.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽讟谉 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 讜诇讗 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 讜诇讗 拽专讜讘 诪讞诪转 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 拽讟谉

Rav Huna says: The court does not authorize a minor, even if he is an heir, to descend to the property of a captive. And the court does not authorize a relative who is an heir to descend to the property of a minor that has no one to tend to it. And the court does not authorize a relative due to a relative to descend to the property of a minor.

讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽讟谉 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬 讚诇诪讗 诪驻住讬讚 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 拽专讜讘 诪讞诪转 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 讘讗讞讬 诪讗讬诪讗 讜诇讗 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讞讬 讗转讬 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬 讘讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: The court does not authorize a minor to descend to the property of a captive, lest he devalue the property. And the court does not authorize a relative due to a relative to descend to the property of a minor. The Gemara explains: It is a case where the minor has a paternal half-brother and that brother has a maternal half-brother. The concern is that the latter, who is not at all related to the minor who owns the field, will claim that he inherited the field from his brother. And the court does not authorize a relative to descend to the property of a minor. The concern is that since the minor does not protest at the appropriate time and assert that the property does not belong to his relative, that relative will come to assume presumptive ownership of the field.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讘谞讻住讬 拽讟谉

Rava said: Learn from the statement of Rav Huna that one cannot assume presumptive ownership of the property of a minor. Even if one took possession of and used the property of a minor for three years, this does not indicate that he has presumptive ownership of the property. Rav Huna restricted the descent specifically of relatives to the property of a minor, indicating that those are not concerns when it is a non-relative who descends to manage the field. Apparently, the reason that there is no concern is that one cannot assume presumptive ownership of the property of a minor.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讚讬诇

And even if one continues to occupy the field after the minor reached majority, he does not assume presumptive ownership, as perhaps the minor was unaware that he is the field鈥檚 owner.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘讗讞讬 讚讗讘讗 讗讘诇 讘讗讞讬 讚讗诪讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讗讞讬 讚讗讘讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘讗专注转讗 讗讘诇 讘讘转讬 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讘讗专注转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 注讬讟讚讗 讗讘诇 注讘讬讚 注讬讟讚讗 拽诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛

The Gemara comments: And we said only in the case of paternal brothers that the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a minor, as they are potential heirs. But in the case of maternal brothers we have no problem with it, as they are not potential heirs. And in the case of paternal brothers, we said that the court does not authorize a relative only with regard to land. But in the case of houses we have no problem with it, as there are neighbors who can testify that the house does not belong to those brothers. And with regard to land too, we said that it is only in a case where the minor鈥檚 father did not draft a document of division of the property that the court does not authorize a relative. But in a case where the minor鈥檚 father drafted a document of division, it generates publicity, and everyone knows which portion belongs to each of the brothers.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讞讬 讚讗讘讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讞讬 讚讗诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗专注转讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘转讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 注讘讬讚 注讬讟讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 注讬讟讚讗 诇讗 诪讞转讬谞谉

The Gemara concludes: But this is not so, as there is no difference whether they are paternal brothers and there is no difference whether they are maternal brothers; it is no different whether it is land, and it is no different whether it is houses; and it is no different whether he drafted a document of division, and it is no different whether he did not draft a document of division. We do not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a minor, to avoid that relative being regarded as the owner of the property.

讛讛讬讗 住讘转讗 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 转诇转 讘谞转讗 讗讬砖转讘讗讬 讗讬讛讬 讜讞讚讗 讘专转讗 讗讬讚讱 转专转讬 讘谞转讗 砖讻讬讘讗 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜砖讘拽讛 讬谞讜拽讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 诇讜拽诪讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬 讘讬讚讗 讚讗讞转讗 讚诇诪讗 砖讻讬讘讗 住讘转讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽专讜讘 诇谞讻住讬 拽讟谉 谞讜拽诪讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讘讬讚讗 讚讬谞讜拽讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讘讗 住讘转讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 拽讟谉 诇谞讻住讬 砖讘讜讬

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain old woman who had three daughters. She and one daughter were taken captive. Of the other two daughters, one died and left behind a minor son. Abaye said: What should we do in this case with the property of the old woman? If one suggests: Let us establish the property in the possession of the surviving sister, that is problematic. There is a concern that perhaps the old woman died in captivity, and if the old woman died, the minor inherits one-third of her property, and the court does not authorize a relative to descend and manage the property of a minor. If one suggests: Let us establish the property in the possession of the minor, that is also problematic. There is concern that perhaps the old woman did not die, and the court does not authorize a minor to descend and manage the property of a captive.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讱 驻诇讙讗 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讛 诇讗讞转讗 讜讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇讬谞讜拽讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讙讜 讚诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇驻诇讙讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗

Abaye said: Consequently, half of the property is given to the surviving sister. If the captives died, she is the inheritor of half the property; if the captives are alive, this is a case where the court authorizes a relative to descend and manage the property of a captive. And for the other half of the property, we establish a steward on behalf of the minor, as it is conceivable that he inherited the property. Rava said: Once we appoint a steward for half of the property, we appoint a steward for the other half of the property, and it remains under his stewardship until the state of the captives becomes known.

诇住讜祝 砖诪注讜 讚砖讻讬讘讗 住讘转讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讬诇转讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 诇讗讞转讗 讜转讬诇转讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讬谞讜拽讗 讜讗讬讚讱 转讬诇转讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 讚谞拽讗 诇讗讞转讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讚谞拽讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇讬谞讜拽讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讙讜 讚诪讜拽讬诐 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇讚谞拽讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 谞诪讬 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 诇讗讬讚讱 讚谞拽讗

Ultimately, they heard that that old woman died, and they did not hear the fate of the captive daughter. Abaye said: We give one-third of the property to the surviving daughter. And we give one-third of the property to the minor, as he inherits it from his grandmother by virtue of his deceased mother. And of the other one-third of the property, which belongs to the captive sister whose fate is unknown, we give one-sixth [danka] to the surviving sister, and for the other one-sixth, we appoint a steward on behalf of the minor, as perhaps the sister died and the property is his. Rava said: Once we appoint a steward for one-sixth of the property, we also appoint a steward for the other one-sixth of the property, until the fate of the captive sister is known.

诪专讬 讘专 讗讬住拽 讗转讗 诇讬讛 讗讞讗 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讜讙 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇讱

搂 The Gemara relates: Mari bar Isak, who was a wealthy and powerful man, had a brother whom he did not previously know, come to him from Bei 岣zai, which was distant from central Babylonia. His brother said to him: Divide the property that you inherited from our father and give half to me, as I am your brother. Mari said to him: I do not know who you are.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讱 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讻专 讬讜住祝 讗转 讗讞讬讜 讜讛诐 诇讗 讛讻专讛讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讬爪讗 讘诇讗 讞转讬诪转 讝拽谉 讜讘讗 讘讞转讬诪转 讝拽谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗讞讜讛 讗转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转 诇讬 住讛讚讬 讜讚讞诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 讗诇讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讝讬诇 讗谞转 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚诇讗讜 讗讞讜讱 讛讜讗

The case came before Rav 岣sda. He said to the brother: Mari bar Isak spoke well to you, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Joseph knew his brothers and they knew him not鈥 (Genesis 42:8). This teaches that Joseph left Eretz Yisrael without the trace of a beard, and he came with the trace of a beard. This proves that it is possible for brothers not to recognize each other. Mari bar Isak may be telling the truth when he claims he does not recognize you. Rav 岣sda said to the brother: Go bring witnesses that you are his brother. The brother said to him: I have witnesses, but they fear Mari bar Isak because he is a violent man. Rav 岣sda said to Mari bar Isak: You go bring witnesses that he is not your brother.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讚讬讬谞讬谞讗 诇讱 讜诇讻诇 讗诇讬诪讬 讚讞讘专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗转讜 住讛讚讬 讜诇讗 诪住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转专转讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬

Mar bar Isak said to him: Is this the halakha? Isn鈥檛 there a principle in these cases that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant? Rav 岣sda said to him: This is the way I judge you and all of your fellow violent people. Mari bar Isak said to him: Ultimately, if that is your concern, witnesses will come, and they will not testify in his favor. They will lie and testify in my favor. Rav 岣sda said to him: They will not perform two wrongs; they will not refrain from telling the truth and also testify falsely.

诇住讜祝 讗转讜 住讛讚讬 讚讗讞讜讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇驻诇讜讙 诇讬 谞诪讬 诪驻专讚讬住讬 讜讘讜住转谞讬 讚砖转诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讱 讚转谞谉 讛谞讬讞 讘谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 讜讛砖讘讬讞讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讛砖讘讬讞讜 诇讗诪爪注

Ultimately, witnesses came and testified that the person from Bei 岣zai was his brother. At that point, the brother said to Mari bar Isak: Divide and give me half of the orchards and the gardens that you planted since the death of our father as well. Rav 岣sda said to Mari bar Isak: He spoke well to you, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 143b): If one died and left adult and minor sons, and the adult sons enhanced the property, they enhanced the property, and the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is divided between the adult sons and the minor sons.

Scroll To Top