Bava Metzia 39a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

“abandoned”

that is, property that was abandoned

against their will

by the owners, for they were captured, and likewise we find this expression in the laws of the Sabbatical year,

as it is written: “

and the seventh year you shall release it and abandon it,”

and yet the Sabbatical year

is an expropriation of the King

and is against the will of the owner of the field.

“Forsaken”

that is, property that was abandoned

voluntarily

by the owners, and as

it is written: “

if she has forsaken the mother with the children,”

that is, she was abandoned voluntarily by her husband.

The tannait

in the beraita:

And all of them

who went down to the property of their relatives

are assessed for them

for their labor

as a tenant farmer.

The Gemara asks:

with regard to which

of the three types of persons who go down to property that were taught in the beraita does this beraita say that they are assessed as a tenant farmer?

If you say

that it is the one who goes down to the property of

captives [

who had heard that they had died], and the intention of the beraita is to say that if the owners came and he had still not eaten all the produce as he would have eaten until then, nevertheless he is assessed as a tenant farmer for this produce—

this cannot be said, because:

now, when he heard that the owners were coming and hurried and ate, the beraita said that he was “

quick and rewarded”

was

and he need not return anything of what he ate—

if so,

then

is there a question concerning what he improved, meaning: it is obvious that in any event they will give him payment for his labor if he did not eat before the owners came, so what does this come to teach us!?

That is, it is obvious that in any event he would be paid for his efforts if he had not consumed the produce before the owners arrived. Why, then, does the beraita need to teach this?

Rather,

say that

the one

who goes down to the property of

the forsaken

is the one concerning whom this beraita says that he is assessed as a tenant farmer—

this too cannot be said, because:

but “

they remove them from his possession”

from the possession of this person who went down to the property

it teaches

in the beraita.

Rather, the one

who goes down to the property of

the abandoned [

captives concerning whom they had not heard that they had died] is the one concerning whom this beraita said that he is assessed as a tenant farmer for the entire period of his labor.

The Gemara is astonished:

according to whom,

according to which of the tannaim—who dispute the law of one who goes down to the property of the forsaken—does this beraita say that they are assessed as a tenant farmer!?

If you say: according to the Rabbis,

this cannot be said, for

the Rabbis say

the following:

they remove him from his possession.

Or, if according to the view of

if it is according to

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

this beraita says that one who goes down to the property of the forsaken is assessed as a tenant farmer, surely this is difficult:

he said

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

“I heard: the abandoned are like captives,”

and with regard to captives we learned that he is “quick and rewarded”; and one can say: “

What he improved is a question!?” And we answer: In fact, the beraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and as for what is difficult for you—that their law is like that of captives, as explained in the beraita—it is not difficult:

For what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, that the abandoned are like captives, does not apply to every matter. Rather, there is one law in which the abandoned

are like captives and

there is one law in which the abandoned

are not like captives,

they are:

like captives

with regard to

that they are not removed from his possession.

And they are not like captives

with regard to

for there,

with captives,

he is quick and rewarded, whereas here,

with the abandoned,

he is assessed as a tenant farmer.

And we challenge:

what is different

about the law of one who goes down to the property of a captive, that he is assessed as a tenant farmer,

from that which we learned

in tractate Ketubot:

“One who expends expenses on the property of

the melog property of

his wife [

land that the woman brings to her husband, whose principal belongs to her while he eats its produce], and he died or divorced her, and he returns the land to the woman: whether

he expended

the husband

many

expenses on the land

and ate

little

produce, or whether he expended

little and ate

much

produce,

what he expended—before he divorced his wife—

before he divorced his wife

he expended, and what he ate—until then—

until that time

he ate;

and he returns the land to her as it is and takes nothing.” And what is different about the law of one who goes down to the property of a captive, that he is assessed as a tenant farmer!?

And what is different about the law governing one who takes possession of the assets of a captive, that he is assessed as an aris?

And we answer:

this—

the one who goes down to the property of a captive—

is not comparable; rather, it is like that which Rabbi Yaakov said in the name of Rav Hisda:

“One who expends expenses on the property of his minor wife”—

whom her brothers and mother married off, and whose betrothal is rabbinic, and concerning whom they said that she leaves through mere mi'un—and she performed mi'un with him,

as one who expends

expenses

on another’s property, so is he;

for if he expended and did not eat enough to cover his expenses, he is assessed as a tenant farmer.

It follows

that it is proven:

since

at the time he expended expenses

the husband’s mind did not rely

on the land remaining in his possession, for he was concerned lest she perform mi'un, therefore

the Rabbis enacted for him

that he should at least take the portion of a tenant farmer,

so that he would not cause them a loss,

so that he would not cause a loss to the land in his possession, by continually sowing it and not working it or hoeing the vineyards.

Here—

with one who goes down to the property of a captive—

the Rabbis likewise enacted for him

that he should take the portion of a tenant farmer,

so that he would not cause them a loss.

The master said:

“And all of them are assessed as a tenant farmer”:

And we explain: “

and all of them”

to include what—what does the expression “and all of them” come to include besides one who goes down to the property of a captive?

To include

that which

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel [

that is, what Rav Naḥman himself said in connection with his statement in the name of Shmuel] concerning one fleeing because of murder: Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel:

“A captive who was captured, they cause a relative to go down to his property.”

But

one who left voluntarily, they do not cause a relative to go down to his property,

because since his mind was settled upon him when he left, and he did not command that they cause someone to go down to his field, infer from this that he does not desire it.

Rav Naḥman himself said [

this is an addition of his own, and not in the name of Shmuel]:

A fugitive

whose mind is not settled upon him, since he is panicked,

is like a captive

to whose property they cause a relative to go down!

And we explain:

A fugitive because of what [

what caused him to flee]?

If you say

a fugitive

because of the poll tax [

the king’s tax], who has nothing with which to pay his head-tax to the king, and flees before the appointed time—

this cannot be said, because since there is no panic here,

that is “

one who

left voluntarily,”

which Rav Naḥman already said in the name of Shmuel: they do not cause a relative to go down to his property; and Rav Naḥman would not have needed to add the law of “the fugitive.”

Rather, a fugitive because of murder [

murder; who killed a person and is concerned that they will sentence him to death], and in this Rav Naḥman said that his law is like that of a captive. And this is what we learned in the beraita: “And all of them are assessed as a tenant farmer,” to include one fleeing because of murder.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

“A captive who was captured,

to whose property they cause a relative to go down,

and left standing grain to be harvested,

or

grapes to be gathered,

or

dates to be cut down [

cutting in the case of dates, as gathering in the case of grapes and knocking down in the case of olives], or he left

olives to be knocked down:

The court first goes down

initially

to his property,

of the captive,

and appoints a guardian,

on their behalf, who takes nothing as his payment,

and harvests, gathers, cuts down, and knocks down.

And

only

afterward do they cause a relative to go down to his property

to improve the land and take the portion of a tenant farmer.

And we challenge:

“And let us appoint a guardian forever”,

why do they cause the relative to go down at all [the one who takes like a tenant farmer], and do they not appoint a guardian [who takes nothing] until the captive returns!?

And we answer: When

we do not appoint a guardian for bearded men

[a guardian for men whose beards have fully grown], and because people are not willing to accept this position, which involves great toil in working and sowing, except when it is for small orphans, which is a mitzva.

Rav Huna said:

a.

We do not lower a minor to the property of a captive,

even though he is fit to inherit it; rather, we lower a foreign man, and he explains the reason and proceeds. b.

Nor

do we lower

a relative

who is fit to inherit, to the property of a minor,

to the property of a minor

who was captured,

c.

And

even

not

is a

relative because of a relative

that is, a relative of the minor's relative, such as the maternal brother of the minor's paternal half-brother—

appointed to manage the property of a minor,

as he explains the reason and proceeds.

And we explain:

We do not lower a minor to the property of a captive,

what is the reason?

Perhaps he will cause it to be lost

[since he is a minor, perhaps he will cause the property to be lost].

Nor

do we lower

a relative on account of a relative to the property of a minor,

what is “a relative on account of a relative”?

The maternal brothers,

a maternal brother of the minor's paternal half-brother.

Nor

do we lower

a relative to the property of a minor,

what is the reason?

Since

the minor

does not protest

[he does not know how to protest],

he may come to establish a claim of ownership over it

and say that he is dividing the inheritance that he inherited from his father; and for this reason as well, a relative on account of a relative may not be lowered, lest he establish a claim of ownership over it for the sake of his relative, saying: “It is a portion of my relative's inheritance.”

and for this reason one likewise may not appoint a relative on account of a relative, lest he establish possession over it for the benefit of his relative, saying: “It is a portion of my relative’s inheritance.”

Rava said: Learn from Rav Huna

as he said: One may not appoint a relative over the property of a minor. It follows that one may appoint a stranger, and we are not concerned that he will claim and say, “The minor’s father sold it to me,” and seek to be believed like one who has established possession of land for three years, who is trusted to say, “I purchased it”: One may not establish possession over the property of a minor

Rava said: Infer from Rav Huna