## Bava Metzia Daf 39a

###### Bava Metzia 39a:1
[Bava Metzia 39a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/39a:1)

״נְטוּשִׁים״ דִּבְעַל כׇּרְחָן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַשְּׁבִיעִת תִּשְׁמְטֶנָּה וּנְטַשְׁתָּהּ״ – אַפְקַעְתָּא דְמַלְכָּא. ״רְטוּשִׁים״ דְּמִדַּעְתָּן, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵם עַל בָּנִים רֻטָּשָׁה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Abandoned** property **[*netushim*];** this is referring to property that the owners vacated **perforce. When it is written: “But the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow [*untashtah*]”** (Exodus 23:11), that is **expropriation by** edict of **the King** of the Universe. **Forsaken** property **[*retushim*];** this is referring to property that the owners vacated **of their** own **volition, as it is written: “A mother was forsaken [*rutasha*] with her sons”** (Hosea 10:14), indicating that the mother was left with the sons, as all the men left.


###### Bava Metzia 39a:2
[Bava Metzia 39a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/39a:2)

תָּנָא: וְכוּלָּם שָׁמִין לָהֶם כְּאָרִיס. אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַשְּׁבוּיִין, הַשְׁתָּא זָרִיז וְנִשְׂכָּר הֲוָה, מַאי דְּאַשְׁבַּח מִיבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא אַרְטוּשִׁים – וְהָא ״מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדוֹ״ קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A Sage **taught** with regard to the *baraita* discussing the case of one who descends to the property of another: **And** for **all of them,** the court **appraises their** work **as** one would appraise the work of **a sharecropper.** The Gemara asks: **To which** property in the *baraita* is this ruling stated? **If we say** it is stated **with regard to captives’** property, **now** that the *tanna* stated that **he is diligent and he profits,** as he may take as much produce as he wishes, is it **necessary** to say that he can take a share **of what** he did to **enhance** the field? **Rather,** say that it is stated **with regard to forsaken** property. **But isn’t it taught:** The court **removes it from his possession?** The legal status of the one who labored in the field is not at all similar to that of a sharecropper.


###### Bava Metzia 39a:3
[Bava Metzia 39a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/39a:3)

אֶלָּא אַנְּטוּשִׁים. לְמַאן? אִילֵּימָא לְרַבָּנַן – הָא אָמְרִי מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. אִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל – הָא אָמַר שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהַנְּטוּשִׁים כִּשְׁבוּיִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** say that it is stated **with regard to abandoned** property. The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion? **If we say it is in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, don’t they say:** The court **removes it from his possession?** And **if** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, doesn’t he say: I heard that** the legal status of **abandoned** property **is like** that of **captives’** property, and the rights of the one who labored in the field are superior to those of a sharecropper.


###### Bava Metzia 39a:4
[Bava Metzia 39a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/39a:4)

כִּשְׁבוּיִין וְלֹא שְׁבוּיִין. כִּשְׁבוּיִין – דְּאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדוֹ, וְלֹא שְׁבוּיִין – דְּאִילּוּ הָתָם זָרִיז וְנִשְׂכָּר, וְאִילּוּ הָכָא שָׁיְימִינַן לֵיהּ כְּאָרִיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the legal status of that property is in some ways **like** that of **captives’** property **but** in other ways **not** like that of **captives’** property. It is **like** that of **captives’** property in that the court **does not remove it from his possession. But** it is **not** like that of **captives’** property, **as there,** in the case of captives’ property, the one working the field is **diligent and he profits** from the produce he takes, **while here, one appraises their** work **as** one would appraise the work of **a sharecropper.**


###### Bava Metzia 39a:5
[Bava Metzia 39a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/39a:5)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: הַמּוֹצִיא הוֹצָאוֹת עַל נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ, הוֹצִיא הַרְבֵּה וְאָכַל קִימְעָא, קִימְעָא וְאָכַל הַרְבֵּה – מַה שֶּׁהוֹצִיא הוֹצִיא, וּמַה שֶּׁאָכַל אָכַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is different** in this case **from that which we learned** in a mishna (79b): In the case of **one who outlays expenditures to** enhance **his wife’s** usufruct **property,** which belongs to his wife but whose profits are his for the duration of their marriage, if the marriage ends in divorce or his death and she reclaims the property, whether **he spent much** to enhance the property **and consumed little** and did not derive benefit commensurate with his investment, or whether he spent **little and consumed much,** the principle is: **What he spent, he spent, and what he consumed, he consumed.** His labor is not appraised like that of a sharecropper.


###### Bava Metzia 39a:6
[Bava Metzia 39a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/39a:6)

הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְהָא דִּתְנַן: הַמּוֹצִיא הוֹצָאוֹת עַל נִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ קְטַנָּה – כְּמוֹצִיא עַל נִכְסֵי אַחֵר דָּמֵי. אַלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא סָמְכָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ, תַּקִּינוּ לֵיה רַבָּנַן כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לַפְסְדִינְהוּ, הָכָא נָמֵי תַּקִּינוּ לֵיה רַבָּנַן כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לַפְסְדִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This** case **is comparable only to that which we learned** in a statement that Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rav Ḥisda said: The legal status of **one who outlays expenditures to** enhance **the** usufruct **property of his minor wife,** whose father died and whose brother and mother married her off, **is like** that of **one who outlays** expenditures **to** enhance **the property of another,** as this is a marriage by rabbinic law and she can void the marriage by performing refusal. If the husband spent much to enhance the property and consumed little, his work is assessed like that of a sharecropper. **Apparently, since he does not rely** on the fact that her property will remain his, **the Sages instituted on his behalf** that he be reimbursed for his expenditures **so that he will not devalue** the property. **Here too, the Sages instituted on behalf** of the one who labored in the field that he be reimbursed for his labor, **so that he will not devalue** the property.


###### Bava Metzia 39a:7
[Bava Metzia 39a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/39a:7)

וְכוּלָּן שָׁמִין לָהֶם כְּאָרִיס – וְכוּלָּן לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to the phrase written in the *baraita*: **And** for **all of them,** the court **appraises** their work **as** one would appraise the work of **a sharecropper, what** additional case does it serve **to include,** as apparently it applies only to property of those who abandoned it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?


###### Bava Metzia 39a:8
[Bava Metzia 39a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/39a:8)

לְאֵיתוֹיֵי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁבוּי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לִנְכָסָיו, יָצָא לְדַעַת אֵין מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לִנְכָסָיו. וְרַב נַחְמָן דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: בּוֹרֵחַ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּשָׁבוּי. בּוֹרֵחַ מֵחֲמַת מַאי? אִילֵימָא מֵחֲמַת כְּרָגָא – הַיְינוּ לְדַעַת, אֶלָּא בּוֹרֵחַ מֵחֲמַת מְרָדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It comes **to include that which Rav Naḥman says** that **Shmuel says:** For **a captive who was taken captive,** the court **authorizes a relative to descend** and manage **his property.** If **he left of his** own **volition,** the court **does not authorize a relative to descend** and manage **his property. And Rav Naḥman says his own** statement: The legal status of **one who flees is like** that of **a captive.** The Gemara asks: **One who flees** for **what** reason? **If we say** that he flees **due to a tax [*karga*]** that he attempts to evade, **that is** the case of one who left **of** his own **volition. Rather,** the reference is to one who **flees due to** an allegation that he committed **murder [*meradin*],** and he flees to avoid execution. Therefore, his legal status is that of a captive.


###### Bava Metzia 39a:9
[Bava Metzia 39a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/39a:9)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁבוּי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וְהִנִּיחַ קָמָה לִקְצוֹר, עֲנָבִים לִבְצוֹר, תְּמָרִים לִגְדּוֹר, זֵיתִים לִמְסוֹק – בֵּית דִּין יוֹרְדִין לִנְכָסָיו וּמַעֲמִידִין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס, וְקוֹצֵר וּבוֹצֵר וְגוֹדֵר וּמוֹסֵק, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹרִידִין קָרוֹב לִנְכָסָיו. וְלוֹקֵים אַפּוֹטְרוֹפָּא לְעוֹלָם! אַפּוֹטְרוֹפָּא לְדִיקְנָנֵי לָא מוֹקְמִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** In the case of **a captive who was taken captive and left** in his field **standing grain to be reaped,** or **grapes to be harvested,** or **dates to be cut,** or **olives to be picked,** and the owner of the produce will incur significant loss if they are not harvested, **the court descends to his property and appoints a steward** to manage his property. **And he reaps, and harvests, and cuts, and picks, and thereafter** the court **authorizes a relative to descend** and manage **his property.** The Gemara asks: If that is an option, **let** the court **always appoint a steward** to manage the captive’s field. The Gemara answers: **We do not appoint a steward [*apoteropa*] for the bearded,** i.e., adults. A steward is appointed only for orphans.


###### Bava Metzia 39a:10
[Bava Metzia 39a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/39a:10)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אֵין מוֹרִידִין קָטָן לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי, וְלֹא קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי קָטָן, וְלָא קָרוֹב מֵחֲמַת קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי קָטָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna says:** The court **does not authorize a minor,** even if he is an heir, **to descend to the property of a captive. And** the court does **not** authorize **a relative** who is an heir to descend **to the property of a minor** that has no one to tend to it. **And** the court does **not** authorize **a relative due to a relative** to descend **to the property of a minor.**


###### Bava Metzia 39a:11
[Bava Metzia 39a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/39a:11)

אֵין מוֹרִידִין קָטָן לְנִכְסֵי שָׁבוּי, דִּלְמָא מַפְסֵיד לְהוּ. וְלָא קָרוֹב מֵחֲמַת קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי קָטָן, בְּאַחֵי מֵאִימָּא. וְלָא קָרוֹב לְנִכְסֵי קָטָן, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מָחֵי – אָתֵי לְאַחְזוֹקֵי בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: The court **does not authorize a minor to descend to the property of a captive, lest he devalue the property. And** the court does **not** authorize **a relative due to a relative** to descend **to the property of a minor.** The Gemara explains: It is a case **where** the minor has a paternal half-brother and that brother has **a maternal** half-**brother.** The concern is that the latter, who is not at all related to the minor who owns the field, will claim that he inherited the field from his brother. **And** the court does **not** authorize **a relative** to descend **to the property of a minor.** The concern is that **since** the minor **does not protest** at the appropriate time and assert that the property does not belong to his relative, that relative will **come to assume presumptive ownership** of the field.


###### Bava Metzia 39a:12
[Bava Metzia 39a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/39a:12)

אָמַר רָבָא, שְׁמַע מִינֵּיהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא: אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי קָטָן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Learn from** the statement **of Rav Huna** that **one cannot assume presumptive ownership of the property of a minor.** Even if one took possession of and used the property of a minor for three years, this does not indicate that he has presumptive ownership of the property. Rav Huna restricted the descent specifically of relatives to the property of a minor, indicating that those are not concerns when it is a non-relative who descends to manage the field. Apparently, the reason that there is no concern is that one cannot assume presumptive ownership of the property of a minor.