Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE LAW OF THE OVERSEER

(a) (Beraisa): By all of them, the one working the property is paid as a sharecropper.
(b) Question: To which case does this refer?

1. If to property of a captive - the worker can harvest and keep it, surely he is paid for improvements!

(c) Answer #1: Rather, to Retushim property.
(d) Objection: But it says, we remove it from him (we consider that he worked it without permission, surely he does not receive as a sharecropper)!!
(e) Answer #2: Rather, to Netushim property.
(f) Question: According to whom is he paid as a sharecropper?

1. If according to Chachamim - they say, we remove it from him!
2. If according to R. Shimon - he says, it is like property of a captive!

(g) Answer: R. Shimon means, in some ways it is like property of a captive, in some ways, not.

1. It is like property of a captive in that we do not remove it from him;
2. It is unlike property of a captive, for there, he can harvest and keep it; here, he is paid as a sharecropper.

(h) Question: What is the difference between this and the following?

1. (Mishnah): One who spent money on his wife's Melug property - whether he spent a lot and consumed a little, or vice-versa, there is no compensation (when she gets it back after he divorces her);

(i) Answer: Property of a captive resembles the following.

1. (Rav Chisda): If his wife was a minor, and he spent money on it - his law is as one who spends on a stranger's property (if he consumed less than he spent, he is paid as a sharecropper).
2. Because he is unsure if he will keep the property (perhaps she will do Mi'un), Chachamim enacted (to be paid as a sharecropper) so he will work the property properly (and not try to reap a quick profit, causing a long term loss) - also by a captive, he is unsure whether the captive will return!

(j) Question (Beraisa): By all of them, the overseer is paid as a sharecropper - what does this come to include?

(a) Answer: It includes Rav Nachman's case.

1. (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): We appoint a relative over property of a captive; but not over property of someone who willingly went abroad.
2. (Rav Nachman himself): One who flees is as a captive.
3. Question: Why did he flee?

i. If to avoid the head-tax - he willingly left!

4. Answer: Rather, he had killed someone, and feared that he would be killed.

(b) (Rav Yehudah): Reuven was captured before harvesting his standing crop, grapes, dates or olives - Beis Din appoints an overseer to harvest them, then they appoint a relative over the property.
(c) Question: Why not appoint the overseer to stay?
(d) Answer: We do not appoint (strangers to be) overseers for adults (only for children, this is a Mitzvah for which people volunteer).
(e) (Rav Huna): We do not appoint a minor over property of a captive, nor a relative over property of a minor, nor a relative of a relative of a minor.

1. We do not appoint a minor over property of a captive, lest he cause a loss;
2. We do not appoint a relative of a relative of a minor, such as a maternal brother (of the minor's brother), nor a relative of the minor, lest they make a Chazakah and claim the land for themselves (since no one protests).

(f) (Rava): We learn from Rav Huna that one cannot make a Chazakah in property of minors (we are only concerned that relatives will say they inherited it - but strangers can oversee the land), even if he remains on the land three years after the minor matures.

1. We are only concerned for relative's such as paternal uncles (who could claim that he inherited it), not maternal uncles.
2. Even paternal uncles are only forbidden by land - but not by houses (for the neighbors know that it belongs to the minor).
3. Even land is permitted if a document of division of the inheritance was written, for this has publicity.
4. Rejection: All these three points are wrong - in any case, we do not make a relative an overseer on a minor's property.

(g) Leah had three daughters; she and one of them (Chanah) were captured. One of the remaining daughters died, leaving a child.
(h) (Abaye): We cannot put the property by the remaining daughter (Dinah) - perhaps Leah died, (and the child owns some of the property), and we do not appoint a relative over a minor's property!

1. We cannot put the property by the child - perhaps Leah is alive, and we do not appoint a minor over a captive's property!
2. Therefore, Dinah oversees half the property, and we appoint a stranger to oversee half.

(i) (Rava): Once we must appoint a stranger to oversee half, we appoint him over all the property.
(j) Later, they heard that Leah died.
(k) (Abaye): We give a third of the property to Dinah (which surely, she inherits), a third to the child. The last third (belongs to Chanah, if she is alive; if not, Dinah and the child split it) - Dinah oversees a sixth (half of it), we appoint a stranger to oversee the other sixth.
(l) (Rava): Once we must appoint a stranger to oversee a sixth, we appoint him over both sixths.

(a) Ploni came from Bei Chuzai saying that he is the brother of Mari bar Isak, and asked to divide the inheritance of their father; Mari denied knowing him.
(b) Rav Chisda: It is reasonable that Mari would not recognize his brother - "Hem Lo Hikiruhu (Yosef's brothers did not recognize him)" because Yosef left them before he had a beard, and now he had a beard;

1. Ploni must bring witnesses that he is a brother in order to share the inheritance.

(c) Ploni: I have witnesses, but they fear Mari, he is powerful!
(d) Rav Chisda: Mari must bring witnesses that Ploni is not his brother.
(e) Mari: Is that the law?! The one who seeks to take money from another, he must bring proof!
(f) Rav Chisda: This is the law for powerful people.
(g) Mari: If you are concerned that they fear me - even if witnesses testify for me, it will not help!
(h) Rav Chisda: Out of fear, witnesses may be quiet - but they would not lie or deny what they know.