Bava Metzia 77

Chapter 77

א נטושים דבע"כ דכתיב (שמות כג, יא) והשביעית תשמטנה ונטשתה אפקעתא דמלכא רטושים דמדעתן דכתיב (הושע י, יד) אם על בנים רוטשה
1 'Abandoned' implies against their will, as is is written, <i>But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and abandon it</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Ex. XXIII, 11; the reference is to the seventh year, in which land and its produce must be 'abandoned' — i.e., left free for all. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> [i.e.,] by royal dispensation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By Scriptural command; hence against the owner's desire. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב תנא וכולם שמין להם כאריס אהייא אילימא אשבויין השתא זריז ונשכר הוה מאי דאשבח מיבעיא אלא ארטושים והא מוציאין אותן מידו קתני
2 whereas 'forsaken' implies voluntarily, as it is written, <i>The mother shall be forsaken<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');"><sup>3</sup></span></i> of her children.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hos. X, 14; Rashi explains that the reference is to voluntary flight, for fear of the ensuing war. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אלא אנטושים למאן אילימא לרבנן הא אמרי מוציאין אותו מידו אי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הא אמר שמעתי שהנטושים כשבויין
3 A Tanna taught: And for all these a valuation is made as for an <i>aris</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> To what does this refer? Shall we say, To captives: if he is considered 'a zealous man who profits thereby,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And takes the whole of the produce (Rashi). ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד כשבויין ולא שבויין כשבויין דאין מוציאין אותן מידו ולא שבויין דאילו התם זריז ונשכר ואילו הכא שיימינן ליה כאריס
4 can there be a question concerning his own improvements!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely they belong entirely to him, not merely a third or quarter, as in the case of an aris. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> But if to forsaken property — surely it is taught that they are ejected therefrom! — Hence It must refer to abandoned [property]. [Then] according to whom? Shall we say, according to the Rabbis: but they rule that he is ejected therefrom. If R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, surely he observed, 'I have heard that abandoned are as captives' [estates]! — 'They are as those of captives', but not altogether so:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as captives and not as captives.' ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה ומאי שנא מהא דתנן המוציא הוצאות על נכסי אשתו הוציא הרבה ואכל קימעא קימעא ואכל הרבה מה שהוציא הוציא ומה שאכל אכל
5 'as those of captives,'in that they are not ejected therefrom; 'but not altogether so,' for there [sc. in the case of captives' estate] he is considered a zealous man who profits thereby, whereas here a valuation is made for him as for an <i>aris</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since it was not reported that the owner had died, the heir is assumed to have entered into his estates on the tacit understanding that he should be paid as an aris. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> Now, wherein does it differ from what we learnt: If a man incurs expenditure on his wife's property, [whether] he expended much and enjoyed little [usufruct] or the reverse, what he expended he expended, and what he enjoyed he enjoyed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 79b. The reference is to 'property of plucking,' the usufruct of which belongs to the husband, whilst the principal remains the wife's, reverting to her on the husband's death or if he divorces her. — In this case then the husband or his heirs cannot strike a balance between expenditure and revenue, and the question is raised, Why not give the same ruling in the case of abandoned property, instead of regarding the next of kin as an aris. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו הא לא דמיא אלא להא (דתנן) המוציא הוצאות על נכסי אשתו קטנה כמוציא על נכסי אחר דמי אלמא כיון דלא סמכא דעתיה תקינו ליה רבנן כי היכי דלא לפסדינהו הכא נמי תקינו ליה רבנן כי היכי דלא לפסדינהו
6 This is analogous only to what we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Keth. 80a the reading is: to what R. Jacob said in R. Hisda's name. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> If a man incurs expenditure for the property of his wife, a minor, he is regarded as though he had incurred it for that of a stranger.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife referred to is a fatherless child, who had not attained her majority. By Biblical law, only a father could contract a marriage on behalf of his daughter, a minor, but the Rabbis extended the privilege to her mother or brothers, in the absence of a father. (She herself cannot contract a marriage, her actions, as a minor, having no legal validity.) This marriage having only Rabbinical force, she could annul it, on attaining her majority, by declaring that she did not want her husband (mi'un), whereon she became free without the formality of a divorce. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ז וכולן שמין להם כאריס וכולן לאיתויי מאי
7 This shows that since he [her husband] could not place full reliance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the estate would remain in his possession, as she might annul the marriage. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> the Rabbis enacted a measure on his behalf,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that he should be paid as an aris if his wife annulled the marriage. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ח לאיתויי הא דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל שבוי שנשבה מורידין קרוב לנכסיו יצא לדעת אין מורידין קרוב לנכסיו ורב נחמן דידיה אמר בורח הרי הוא כשבוי בורח מחמת מאי אילימא מחמת כרגא היינו לדעת אלא בורח מחמת מרדין
8 in order that he might not cause them [the wife's estates] to deteriorate;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through his neglect. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> so here too, the Rabbis enacted a measure on his behalf, so that he might not cause them [the abandoned estates] to deteriorate.
ט אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שבוי שנשבה והניח קמה לקצור ענבים לבצור תמרים לגדור זיתים למסוק בית דין יורדין לנכסיו ומעמידין אפוטרופוס וקוצר ובוצר וגודר ומוסק ואח"כ מורידין קרוב לנכסיו ולוקים אפוטרופא לעולם אפוטרופא לדיקנני לא מוקמינן:
9 'And for all of these a valuation is made as for an <i>aris</i>.' What does 'all of these' include? — It includes R. Nahman's dictum in Samuel's name: If a man is taken captive, his next of kin is authorised to enter into his estates. If he leaves voluntarily, his next of kin is not permitted to enter upon his estates.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Had he approved of his next of kin, he himself would have appointed him over his estate before he left.] ');"><sup>16</sup></span> Now R. Nahman, giving his own opinion, said: A fugitive is as a captive. Why does he flee? Shall we say, on account of poll-tax? But that is voluntary!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely he himself could have managed to appoint some one before he left, as there was no reason for the hasty flight. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
י אמר רב הונא אין מורידין קטן לנכסי שבוי ולא קרוב לנכסי קטן ולא קרוב מחמת קרוב לנכסי קטן
10 — But [he means] one who flees on account of political offences.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Others: 'murder'. The penalty being a very heavy one, his flight is not voluntary. This case of R. Nahman is included in the term, 'all of these.' ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: If a man is taken captive, and leaves standing corn to be reaped, grapes to be vintaged, dates to be harvested, or olives to be gathered, <i>Beth din</i> enter his estate and appoint a steward who reaps, vintages, harvests and gathers; after that the next of kin is permitted to take possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is paid as an aris. But he cannot take that which is completely grown without his toil. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יא אין מורידין קטן לנכסי שבוי דלמא מפסיד להו ולא קרוב מחמת קרוב לנכסי קטן באחי מאימא [ולא קרוב לנכסי קטן] כיון דלא מחי אתי לאחזוקי ביה
11 Then let a permanent steward be appointed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: who will receive nothing for his stewardship. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> — A steward is not appointed for bearded men.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No one is prepared to work for nothing on behalf of grown men. Stewards are indeed appointed on behalf of minors left fatherless, because stewardship then is regarded as a good deed. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יב אמר רבא שמע מיניה מדרב הונא אין מחזיקין בנכסי קטן
12 R. Huna said: A minor is not permitted to enter upon a captive's estates, nor the next of kin upon a minor's estates, nor a next of kin of a next of kin upon a minor's estates.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., A is the brother of B, a minor, by the same father, whilst C is A's half brother by his mother, hence no blood-relation of B at all. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> 'A minor is not permitted to enter upon a captive's estates,' lest he injure them. 'Nor a next of kin of a next of kin upon a minor's estates' — this refers to a brother on the mother's side.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained in n. 1. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> 'Nor a next of kin upon a minor s estates:' since he [the minor] cannot protest, he may take presumptive possession thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one enjoys three consecutive years' possession of an estate, without its owner formally protesting that it is not his, he is assumed to have bought or otherwise acquired it. Now, a minor cannot protest, and so the relative may claim it as his after three years, on the ground that he, and not the minor, had inherited them; the same applies to the relative's relative (as explained in n. 1), who may claim it as heir of the first next of kin. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> Said Raba: It follows from R. Huna's dictum that one cannot claim presumptive ownership of a minor s estate,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A cannot claim that he bought the estate from B, the minor's father, on the strength of three years' undisturbed possession. This follows from the fact that R. Huna merely forbade a relative to enter upon a minor's estates, but not a stranger, which shows that a stranger's claim of presumptive ownership is ignored. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>