כ מאי שנא הנך דקרו להו נטושים ומאי שנא הני דקרו להו רטושים
20 An objection is raised: R. Eliezer said: From the implication of the verse, And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 23. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> I know that their wives shall be widows and their children fatherless; why then is it stated, and your wives shall be [widows, and your children fatherless]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> This teaches that their wives will seek to remarry and not be permitted, and their children desire to enter upon their father's estate and not be allowed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus they will remain permanently widows and fatherless (in the sense that they cannot set up their own estate). This condition can come about when the fathers are taken captive and their death is not proved, R. Eliezer's dictum shows that in such a case the children are not permitted to enter their father's estate. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> — Said Raba: What we learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Render with MS.M.: '(What is meant is that …) to take, etc.,' deleting 'What we learnt,' as this citation is not a Mishnah.] ');"><sup>21</sup></span> is [that they are not permitted] to take possession and sell.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But they are permitted to take possession. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Now, this happened in Nehardea, and R. Shesheth decided the matter by reference to this Baraitha.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the heir should not enter the captive's estate. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> Said R. Amram to him: But perhaps what we learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Or, 'What was meant was …' cf. p. 232, n. 9.] ');"><sup>24</sup></span> was, to enter and sell? — Perhaps you are from Pumbeditha, he retorted, where they draw an elephant through the eye of a needle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The scholars of the Pumbeditha academy were extremely subtle. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> For these are<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The children who are not permitted to enter upon their father's estate. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> taught side by side with [the widowhood of] the wives: just as these are not permitted to [remarry] at all, so here too, they [sc. the heirs] are not [allowed to take possession] at all. Now, whether the next of kin is permitted to enter upon a captive's estate is disputed by Tannaim. For it has been taught: If one enters upon a captive's estate, he is not ejected thence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we do not withdraw it from his hand.' ');"><sup>27</sup></span> Moreover, even if he [the heir] heard that they [the owners] were making ready to come [to reclaim the land], and he anticipated it by reaping and consuming [the produce], he is a zealous man who profits thereby.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his action is not blameworthy. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> Now, the following are [included in the term], a 'captive's estates': If one's father, brother, or one of his legators went overseas, and it was reported that he had died.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 232. n. 3. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> If a man enters into abandoned estate, he is ejected therefrom. And the following are abandoned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> estates: If one's father, brother, or one of his legators went overseas, and it was not reported that he had died. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel observed: I have heard that abandoned are as captive['s estates].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the heirs are not ejected. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> If a man enters into forsaken property<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]; the Gemara states below that this implies voluntary abandonment. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> he is ejected thence. And the following are forsaken estates: If one's father, brother, or one of his legators is here [sc. in the country], but it is not known whither he has gone. Now, wherein do the former differ [from the latter], that the former are designated 'abandoned,' and the latter 'forsaken'?