Bava Metzia 220

סבר רבי חנינא למימר ארעא בחזקת יתמי קיימא ועל בעל חוב להביא ראיה אמר להו ההוא סבא הכי א"ר יוחנן על היתומים להביא ראיה מאי טעמא ארעא כיון דלגוביינא קיימא כמאן דגביא דמיא ועל היתומין להביא ראיה

Now, R. Hanina thought to rule: The land stands in the presumptive ownership of the orphans; therefore the creditor must adduce proof. But a certain old man observed to him, Thus did R. Johanan rule: It is for the orphans to adduce proof. Why? — Since land stands to be seized [for debt] it is as though it were already seized;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is in the theoretical possession of the creditor. ');">¹</span>

אמר אביי אף אנן נמי תנינא ספק זה קדם וספק זה קדם קוצץ ואינו נותן דמים

hence the onus of proof lies upon the orphans.

אלמא כיון דלמיקץ קיימא אמרינן ליה אייתי ראיה ושקול הכא נמי האי שטרא כיון דלגוביינא קיימא כמאן דגביא דמיא ועל היתומים להביא ראיה

Abaye said: We have learnt likewise: If it is doubtful which came first, he must cut it down without compensation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 24b. A space of fifty cubits around a city had to be left entirely free for the beauty of the town, If one had a tree within fifty cubits, which he had planted after the town-boundaries had been fixed there, he must remove it without compensation. If it had originally been planted outside fifty cubits, but then, owing to the town's extension, it came within the prohibited area, he receives compensation, but is still bound to cut it down. If, however, it is unknown which was there first, there is no compensation. ');">²</span>

אייתו יתמי ראיה דאינהו אשבחו סבר רבי חנינא למימר כי מסלקינן להו בארעא מסלקינן להו

This proves, since it stands to be cut down,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In any case. ');">³</span>

ולא היא בדמי מסלקינן להו מדרב נחמן דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל שלשה שמין להם את השבח ומעלין אותן בדמים ואלו הן בכור לפשוט

we say to him, 'Bring proof [that the tree was here first] and then receive [compensation];' so here too, since the note<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with some texts 'the land.'] ');">⁴</span>

ובעל חוב וכתובת אשה ליתומים ובעל חוב ללקוחות

is for the purpose of collection,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The creditor can seize the land for his debt, including the improvements, save that, if effected by the heirs, he must pay for them. ');">⁵</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי למימרא דסבר שמואל בעל חוב ללקוחות ומי אית ליה שבחא ללוקח והאמר שמואל בעל חוב גובה את השבח וכי תימא לא קשיא כאן בשבח המגיע לכתפים כאן בשבח שאין מגיע לכתפים והא מעשים בכל יום וקא מגבי שמואל אפי' בשבח המגיע לכתפים

it is as though already collected, and therefore the orphans must prove [their contention]. [Subsequently] the orphans brought proof that they had effected the improvements. Now, R. Hanina thought to rule that when their claims are being satisfied,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the return of the increased value. The literal rendering of the text is, 'Where we dismiss them' — by satisfying their claims. ');">⁶</span>

לא קשיא הא דמסיק ביה כשיעור ארעא ושבחא הא דלא מסיק ביה שיעור ארעא ושבחא

it is done with land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are given a portion of the land equal to the increase in value of the whole. ');">⁷</span>

וכי לא מסיק שיעור ארעא ושבחא דיהיב ליה זוזי ללוקח ומסלק ליה הניחא למ"ד אי אית [ליה] זוזי ללוקח לא מצי מסלק ליה לבעל חוב שפיר אלא למ"ד אית ליה זוזי ללוקח מצי מסלק ליה לבעל חוב ונימא ליה אי הוו לי זוזי הוה מסליקנא לך מכולא ארעא השתא דלית לי זוזי הב לי גריוא דארעא בארעאי שיעור שבחאי

But that is incorrect: their claims are satisfied with money. This follows from R. Nahman's dictum. For R. Nahman said in Samuel's name: In three cases the improvements are assessed and payment made in money, viz., [In the settlement of the debt of] the first born to the ordinary son; of the creditor or of the widow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wife.' ');">⁸</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דשויא ניהליה אפותיקי דא"ל לא יהא לך פרעון אלא מזו:

who collected her <i>kethubah</i> to orphans; and of the creditors to the vendees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (i) A firstborn receives a double share of the estate left by the deceased (Deut. XXI, 17), but not of the improvements effected after death. Now, if the division was not made immediately but some time after death, and both the firstborn and the ordinary son had effected improvements upon the whole estate in the interval: when the firstborn subsequently takes his double share, it contains part of the joint improvements to which he is not entitled. An assessment is therefore made, and he must pay the ordinary sum for it, not by allotting him an additional piece of ground, but in money. Similarly (ii) when a widow or a creditor seizes the estate in satisfaction of their claim, which was improved by the heirs after the deceased's death, to which improvements they are not entitled. (iii) If a debtor sells land after contracting a written debt, the creditor can seize the land from the vendee, if the unsold estate is insufficient; but he must compensate the vendee for his improvements. This too is done with money, not land, but v. text on iii. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המקבל שדה מחבירו לשבוע אחד בשבע מאות זוז השביעית מן המנין קבלה הימנו שבע שנים בשבע מאות זוז אין השביעית מן המנין

Rabina objected before R. Ashi: Shall we say that in Samuel's opinion the creditor must return the improvement to the vendees?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So according to MS.M.; text incur. edd. is somewhat defective.] ');">¹⁰</span>

שכיר יום גובה כל הלילה שכיר לילה גובה כל היום שכיר שעות גובה כל הלילה וכל היום שכיר שבת שכיר חדש שכיר שנה שכיר שבוע יצא ביום גובה כל היום יצא בלילה גובה כל הלילה וכל היום:

Has then the vendee any title to the improvement: Surely Samuel said: A creditor collects the improvements! And should you reply, There is no difficulty, the one refers to an improvement touching the carriers; the other to an improvement not touching the carriers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jast.: an improvement touching the carriers, i.e., an increase in the value of the crop, opp. to an increase in the value of the land; v. supra p. 89, n. 4. ');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר מנין לשכיר יום שגובה כל הלילה ת"ל (ויקרא יט, יג) לא תלין פעולת שכיר אתך עד בקר ומנין לשכיר לילה שגובה כל היום שנאמר (דברים כד, טו) ביומו תתן שכרו

Surely cases arose daily where Samuel ordered distraint even of the improvement touching the carriers! — There is no difficulty: in one case, the value of the land and its improvement is claimed; in the other, the value of the land and its improvement is not claimed. But where the value of the land and its improvement is not claimed, [you say that] he must pay the vendee money [for his improvements] and can dismiss him. Now, that agrees well with the view that [even] if the vendee has money, he cannot pay off the creditor. But on the view that he can,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as the original debtor. ');">¹²</span>

ואימא איפכא שכירות אינה משתלמת אלא בסוף

let him say to him, 'Had I money, I would have paid you off from the whole estate; now that I have no money, give me a griwa of land in any field, to the value of my improvements'? — The circumstances here are that he [the original debtor] had created it [the field] an hypothec,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 90 n. 5. ');">¹³</span>

ת"ר ממשמע שנאמר לא תלין פעולת שכיר אתך איני יודע שעד בקר מה ת"ל עד בקר מלמד שאינו עובר אלא עד בקר ראשון בלבד

declaring to him, 'Your payment shall come Only out of this.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that case all agree that the vendee cannot retain a portion of the land against his improvements. ');">¹⁴</span>

מכאן ואילך מאי אמר רב עובר משום בל תשהא אמר רב יוסף מאי קראה (משלי ג, כח) אל תאמר לרעך לך ושוב ומחר אתן ויש אתך

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE LEASES A FIELD FOR A SEPTENNATE FOR SEVEN HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>, THE SABBATICAL YEAR IS INCLUDED. BUT IF HE LEASES IT FOR SEVEN YEARS FOR SEVEN HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>, IT IS NOT INCLUDED. A WORKER ENGAGED BY THE DAY CAN COLLECT [HIS WAGES] THE WHOLE OF THE [FOLLOWING] NIGHT; IF ENGAGED BY THE NIGHT, HE CAN COLLECT IT THE WHOLE OF THE [FOLLOWING] DAY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that if he is paid any time during that day or night, his employer does not violate the injunctions against delaying payment. Lev. XIX, 13 and Deut. XXIV, 15. ');">¹⁵</span>

ת"ר האומר לחבירו צא שכור לי פועלים שניהן אין עוברין משום בל תלין זה לפי שלא שכרן

IF ENGAGED BY THE HOUR, HE CAN COLLECT IT THE WHOLE DAY AND NIGHT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra Gemara. ');">¹⁶</span> IF ENGAGED BY THE WEEK, MONTH, YEAR, OR SEPTENNATE, IF HIS TIME EXPIRES BY DAY, HE CAN COLLECT [HIS WAGES] THE WHOLE OF THAT DAY; IF BY NIGHT, HE CAN COLLECT IT ALL NIGHT AND THE [FOLLOWING] DAY. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: Whence do we know that a worker hired by day collects [his wages] all night? From the verse, <i>the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 13; hence, if paid before morning, it is well. ');">¹⁷</span> And whence do we know that a worker hired by the night collects it the whole of the [following] day? Because it is written, <i>At his day shalt thou give him his hire</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. ibid. ');">¹⁸</span> But let us say the reverse?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the night worker must be paid during the night for which he is engaged, the first verse quoted being so interpreted: similarly the day worker. ');">¹⁹</span> — Wages are payable only at the end [of the engagement].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deduced from a verse supra 65a, q.v. ');">²⁰</span> Our Rabbis taught: From the implication of, <i>The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night</i>, do I not know that it means, until the morning? Why then is it written, until the morning? To teach that he [the employer] violates [the injunction] only until the first morning. But thereafter? — Said Rab: He transgresses, <i>Thou shalt not delay</i> [payment]. R, Joseph said: What verse [shews this]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actually there is no such injunction. ');">²¹</span> — Say not unto thy neighbour, <i>Go, and come again, and to-morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' prov. III, 28. ');">²²</span> Our Rabbis taught: If one instructs his neighbour, 'Go out and engage for me workers,' neither transgresses the injunction, <i>Thou shalt not keep</i> [the wages] <i>all night</i>. The former, because he did not engage them;