Bava Metzia 110a — the Talmud in English

Rather,

they should be sold for firewood, and land should be purchased with them, and he,

the husband

eats the produce,

for the Sages instituted for the husband only the eating of produce from her property, and not the eating of the principal.

It follows that, if the trees dried up, they are considered principal, and this is difficult for Abaye, who says that they are produce.

And we answer: Do not say that the case is of a woman to whom old trees fell, but rather

say

that grapevines and olive trees that produce fruit fell to her,

and became old

before their time. And Abaye agrees concerning trees that dried up before their time that they are land; therefore the husband has no share in them. But if old trees fell to him, the husband may consume them.

And if you wish, say: No; did we establish that

the

such as those that fell to her

grapevines and olive trees

in another field,

which is not hers,

so that the principal would be consumed

if the husband were to cut them down? And for that reason he must sell them and purchase land with their value, and the husband eats the produce. But if the trees grew in her field, it is possible that the husband may cut them down, for they are produce, in accordance with Abaye.

A certain

borrower gave a field to a lender so that the lender would eat its produce for several years and thereby be released from payment of his debt, as in a mashkanta de-Sura, and they wrote

a document

about this, but the number of years was not mentioned in the document,

for it was written in it

only

years

in

an unspecified manner.

If they came to court after two years had passed, during which the lender had eaten the produce,

the lender

and

said:

I received it to eat its produce for

three

years, and

the borrower

and

said:

I gave it to you only to eat

t

вух

wo

years,

,

the borrower is trusted, because he is the one in possession of the field, and the lender must return the field to the borrower.

But if the borrower did not sue him after two years, and

the lender preceded him and ate the produce

of the third year, and afterward the borrower sued him in court and claimed: I gave you only the eating of produce for two years, and you must return what you ate in the third year, while the lender says: I received it for the eating of three years,

who is trusted?

Rav Yehuda said: The land stands in the possession of its owners,

and since the borrower is the owner of the land, the lender must bring proof that he received it for three years. And as long as he has not brought proof, he must return the value of the produce that he ate.

Rav Kahana said: The produce stands in the possession of those who eat it ,

therefore the lender who ate it is considered to be in possession of it, and the borrower must bring proof that he gave it to him to eat for only two years.

And the halakha is in accordance with him, Rav Kahana, who said that the produce stands in the possession of those who eat it

(it stands),

but the Gemara raises an objection:

But we have established that the halakha is in accordance with Rav Naḥman

concerning one who rents a bathhouse from another for twelve gold coins per year, at one gold dinar per month, and the year became intercalated. In that case, it is now uncertain which formulation that he said is determinative whether what he undertook for the entire year was twelve gold coins, including the additional month, or whether he undertook one gold dinar for each month and must now add another dinar for the thirteenth month,

For

Rav Naḥman

said: The land stands in the possession of its owners.

And the renter must bring proof that he intended to pay twelve gold coins for the entire year. And we do not say that the land is in the possession of the one who eats the produce. If so, how do we rule in accordance with Rav Kahana, who said that the produce stands in the possession of those who eat it?

And we answer:

There

in the case of one who rents a bathhouse, where it is not known how to interpret the renter’s intention—whether he intended to pay for each month separately and must add a dinar for the additional month, or whether he undertook twelve gold coins for the entire year—

it is a matter that is not destined

to be revealed,

and the halakha is in accordance with Rav Naḥman, that the land stands in the possession of its owners.

But

here,

where it is uncertain for how many years the lender received it to eat its produce,

it is a matter destined to be revealed,

for example, witnesses may come and testify for how many years the borrower gave the field. Therefore, if the lender preceded him and ate it, we do not remove it from his possession, lest witnesses subsequently come and say that the law is indeed with the lender, and they had removed it from him for nothing,

and we do not trouble the court twice,

rather, we leave with the lender what he ate, and if witnesses come and say that he received it only for the eating of two years, he will have to return what he ate in the third year.

And for this reason we say that the halakha is in accordance with Rav Kahana, that the produce is in the possession of those who eat it.

A lender who received a field from the borrower to eat its produce for several years, as a mashkanta de-Sura, and after three years had passed from the time he began eating the produce, the borrower sued him to return the field to him.

The lender says:

I received it for

five

years, and I ate only three of them. And

the borrower says:

I gave it for

three

years, and the period of the pledge has ended.

He said to him,

the borrower:

Bring me your document,

in which it is written that you received it for the eating of five years.

He said to him,

the lender:

The document has been lost,

it was lost

to me.

Rav Yehuda said:

Even though the document is not in the possession of the

lender, he is trusted, by virtue of a migo

that if he wished

to lie, he

would have said:

This field, whose produce I ate for three years,

is purchased by me,

I purchased it from the borrower and ate it for the three years of presumptive possession .

Rav Pappa said to Rav Ashi: Rav Zevid and Rav Avira do not hold in accordance with this statement of Rav Yehuda,

What is the reason?

It is a rabbinic enactment that one who purchases land is not required to preserve his document for more than three years. And if a protest is raised against his possession of the land after three years, he need not bring a document of proof.

And this was said specifically concerning a document whose essential purpose is proof, so that he would not have to preserve his document forever. But a document made for collection: if the document is lost, the claimant cannot say, “The document was lost to me,” because a person is careful to preserve the documents with which he collects his money.

And

this document,

the pledge document that was in the lender’s possession,

since

its principal purpose

is for collection,

by means of which he can eat the produce,

he is extremely careful with it

and does not lose it,

and

certainly it was not lost to him, but rather

he concealed his document,

he hid

his document,

because he

thought:

If I conceal the document, I can say: I did not receive it for three years, but for five, and

I will eat two additional years,

therefore the lender is not trusted by the migo that he could have said: It is purchased by me; rather, he must bring proof that he received the field to eat it for five years.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

According to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the lender is trusted by the migo that he could have said: It is purchased by me,

but if that is so, this mashkanta de-Sura,

which the Sages instituted to permit the lender to eat produce from the borrower’s field even for more than the amount of his debt,

that they write

in the document [found in the lender’s possession]

as follows: When these years are completed,

when these years end,

this land shall go out without money,

so that the borrower will not need to repay his debt.

This would be an enactment that leads to a mishap, for example,

where he concealed it,

the lender hid

the pledge document and said:

This field, whose produce I ate for three years,

is purchased by me,

And according to Rabbi Yehuda, it follows that

so too, the

lender

is trusted.

And do the Sages institute a matter that leads

to

loss!?

He said to him,

Rava,

there,

in the case of mashkanta de-Sura,

the Sages instituted

for him, the Sages,

for the borrower, so that he could repay his debt with produce, and they did not fear that the lender would conceal the document, because

the owner of the land,

the borrower, is the one who

pays the land tax,

pays a tax to the king on the field,

and

he

digs irrigation channels,

he digs irrigation channels for the field, and it is apparent to everyone who the owner of the field is. Thus there is no concern that the lender will say: This field is purchased by me.

Ravina said to him: If so,

land that has no irrigation channels,

which does not require channels to be dug in it,

and

land that

does not give

for it

a land tax—what

of it? For the Sages also instituted concerning it that the borrower could give it against his debt, so why should we not fear that the lender will claim: This field is purchased by me!?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

It was incumbent upon him

the borrower

to protest,

to make a protest within three years, so that the lender would not become one in possession by virtue of holding the field, when he is merely a lender eating the produce.

And if

he did not protest

the borrower against the lender,

what

then? If the lender says after three years: It is purchased by me, will he be trusted!?

He himself,

the borrower

is the one who harmed himself,

by not protesting against the lender within three years, and we need not be concerned for him.

A sharecropper

who

says:

When the time came for him to receive his wages, with the intention of

re

ceiving

half

of the improvement

I entered, and the owner of the house says: I brought him in for a third; who is trusted?

Rav Yehuda said: The owner of the house is trusted.

Rav Naḥman said: Everything follows the custom of the country.

They thought

the inhabitants of the study hall, that Rav Yehuda and Rav Naḥman

do not disagree,

but

this

statement of Rav Naḥman, that the sharecropper is trusted, is referring

to a place where the sharecropper takes half,

and

this

statement of Rav Yehuda, that the owner of the house is trusted, is referring

to a place where the sharecropper takes a third,

for the sharecropper is not trusted against the custom.

Rav Mari son of the daughter of Shmuel said to them: This is what Abaye said: Even in a place where the sharecropper takes half, they disagree.

Rav Yehuda said that the owner of the house is trusted, for if he wished

to lie, he would have

said

I did not take him to work as a sharecropper, but rather

he is a hired laborer and hired field worker,

whom I hired on the condition of paying him with money. Therefore, even now, when he says that he undertook to pay him only a third, he is trusted.

And Rav Naḥman holds that everything follows the custom of the country. Therefore, if the custom is to give sharecroppers half, the sharecropper is trusted; and if the custom is to give them only a third, the owner of the house is trusted.

A borrower who mortgaged his field to a lender for his debt and died, and the creditor came to collect the land from the orphans.

The orphans say

You have no right to collect the improvement by which the land improved, because

we improved

it, and the creditor has no share in what the orphans improved.

And the creditor says:

I will take even the improvement, because

your father improved

the field, and the field, together with its improvement, became pledged to me.

Upon whom is it incumbent to bring proof?