Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) AMBIGUOUS DOCUMENTS

(a) A document (of Mashkanta) said 'years' without specifying how many. Reuven (the lender) says it was for three years, Shimon (the borrower) says two.
(b) (Rav Yehudah): If Reuven already ate the produce for three years, he must pay for the last year - when in doubt, we establish land to belong to the original owner (Shimon);
(c) (Rav Kahana): Our question is regarding the produce, which is by Reuven - the Chazakah favors him, he need not pay.

1. The Halachah follows Rav Kahana.
2. Question: But the Halachah follows Rav Nachman (in monetary laws) who says that when in doubt, we apply Chazakah to the land and say it belongs to the original owner!
3. Answer: That is when the doubt will never be resolved (e.g. when two expressions contradict each other, we do not know which to follow);

i. Here, witnesses might come and testify how many years it was for - Beis Din does not force someone to pay if we anticipate that future testimony might force Beis Din to retract its ruling.

(d) (Rav Yehudah): If Reuven says it was for five years (and he lost the document), and Shimon says three, Reuven is believed, Migo he could have said that he bought it (i.e. if he wanted to lie, he had a better lie to say).
(e) Rav Papa: Rav Zvid and Rav Avira argue with Rav Yehudah.

1. A buyer is only careful with his document for three years - but a lender is careful as long as he is entitled to eat the produce (we assume that he did not lose it, he is hiding it in order to eat extra produce)!

(f) Question ((Rashi - against Rav Yehudah; Rashba - also against Rav Zvid and Rav Avira) - Ravina): If so, Mashkanta of Sura, in which they write 'After such and such years, the land reverts to the owner for free' - the lender should be believed to say that he bought it!

1. Chachamim would not enact something that enables the lender to steal.

(g) Answer (Rav Ashi): Chachamim enacted that the borrower pay the taxes and fix the trench around the field (so all will know that he did not sell it).

1. Question: What if the land has no taxes or trenches?
2. Answer: He must protest (tell people) that the land was not sold, it is being eaten as Mashkanta (this obligates one who claims to have bought the land to guard the document).
3. Question: What if he did not protest?
4. Answer: He caused his own loss through his negligence.

(h) (Rav Yehudah): If Reuven (a sharecropper) claims that Shimon hired him on condition to receive half the produce, and Shimon says that he promised to give a third, Shimon is believed;
(i) (Rav Nachman): We follow the local custom.
(j) Suggestion: Rav Yehudah can agree with Rav Nachman - Rav Yehudah speaks in a place where the custom is that sharecroppers get a third.
(k) Rejection (Rav Mari bra d'bas Shmuel citing Abaye): No - even in a place where sharecroppers get half, Shimon is believed, Migo he could say that Reuven is not his sharecropper, he is only a hired worker.

(a) Question: Reuven died, leaving land and a creditor (Shimon). His orphans claim that they improved the land (and Shimon can only collect from the value of what they inherited), Shimon claims that Reuven improved the land - who must bring proof?

(b) Answer #1 (R. Chanina): The land is in the Chazakah of the orphans, Shimon must bring proof.
(c) Rejection: R. Yochanan said, the orphans must bring proof.
(d) Question: What is R. Yochanan's reason?
(e) Answer: Since Shimon stands to collect the land, it is as if he already collected it (he is Muchzak).
(f) Support (Abaye - Mishnah): (A tree within 50 Amos of a city may be cut; if it preceded the city, they must compensate the owner.) If we are unsure whether the tree or city came first, it may be cut without paying the owner.

1. Since it may be cut in any case, the owner must bring proof to collect;
2. Here also, in any case Shimon collects the land - we are unsure whether Shimon must compensate for the improvements, the orphans must bring proof to collect.

(g) The orphans proved that they improved the land.
(h) (R. Chanina): Shimon must let them keep a piece of the land worth as much as the improvements.
(i) Rejection: No, he may give them money.

1. (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): In three cases we evaluate the improvements and pay it with money: a firstborn (if the brothers improved the land together, the firstborn gets an extra share of the land but he is not entitled to an extra share of the improvements), a creditor or widow (entitled to a Kesuvah) collecting from orphans, and a creditor collecting from someone who bought the borrower's land after the loan.

(j) Question (Ravina): Does Shmuel really hold that a buyer is compensated for improvements when a creditor takes the land?

1. Contradiction (Shmuel): A creditor collects the improvements.
2. Suggestion: Perhaps Shmuel says that a buyer is compensated for fruit that is almost ready to be harvested, a creditor takes (for free) fruit that needs to remain attached for a while.
3. Rejection: Shmuel often authorized a creditor to take fruit almost ready to be harvested.

(k) Answer: A creditor collects the improvements for free if he is owed the value of the land and the improvements;

1. If not, he must return the value of the improvements - Shmuel taught, he may return money.
2. This is according to the opinion that the creditor may take the land even if the buyer has money and wants to pay the debt and keep the land.

(l) Question: According to the opinion that if the buyer has money he may pay the debt and keep the land (against the creditor's will), the buyer can say, if I had money, you would not get any land - the improvements should be considered as partial payment, you must let me keep their value in land!
(m) Answer: The case is, the land was made an Apotiki, the loan is to be collected only from it.

(a) (Mishnah): If Reuven rents a field from Shimon for a Shavu'a (seven year period) for 700 Zuz, Shemitah counts as one of the seven years;

1. If he rents for seven years for 700 Zuz, Shemitah does not count as one of the seven years.

(b) The following are the periods for paying workers: a worker hired for a day must be paid that night, one hired for a night must be paid the coming day, one hired by the hour must be paid that night or day,

1. One hired for a week, month, year or Shemitah cycle - if he ends working by day, he must be paid that day; if he ends working by night, he must be paid that night of the coming day.

(c) (Gemara - Beraisa): "Lo Salin Pe'ulas Sachir Itecha Ad Boker" - this teaches that a worker hired for a day must be paid that night;

1. "B'Yomo Titen Scharo" -this teaches that one hired for a night must be paid the coming day.

(d) Question: Perhaps the former verse speaks of one hired for the night, and the latter verse speaks of one hired for the day!
(e) Answer: Wages need not be paid before the job is finished, we cannot obligate one to pay a day worker by day (or to pay a night worker by night).
(f) (Beraisa): "Lo Salin" already teaches that one may not keep a worker's wages the entire night - what does "Ad Boker" add?
(g) Answer: This teaches that one transgresses only the first morning.
(h) Question: What if he further delays paying?
(i) Answer (Rav): He transgresses 'Bal Tishaheh' (delaying payment).

1. (Rav Yosef): Rav learns from "Do not say 'Lech va'Shuv, I will pay you tomorrow', when you have the money.