1)DOES A CREDITOR COLLECT FROM ATTACHED PRODUCE? [creditor :collection: Peros]
1.(Shmuel): A creditor takes Shevach.
2.Inference: He only takes Shevach, but not Peros!
3.(Rava): A seller writes (in the sale document) 'I will silence any claims against this sale; the land, money invested in it and Shevach.'
4.Shmuel says that a creditor must pay for Shevach (Peros) if it is Magi'a l'Kesafim.
5.Question: Shmuel regularly rules that a creditor collects such Shevach for free!
6.Answer: That is when he was owed the value of the land and the Shevach.
7.Shevuos 42b (Mishnah - R. Meir): If Reuven claimed 'I entrusted you with 10 laden vines, and Shimon said 'you entrusted me with only five', he must swear.
8.Chachamim say that anything attached is like land; he need not swear.
9.43a (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): They argue about grapes ready to be detached. R. Meir considers them as if they were already detached; Chachamim do not.
10.Kesuvos 50b: Rav Yosef ruled that daughters be fed from dates on mats.
11.Question (Abaye): A creditor would not collect from them (they are Metaltelim)!
12.Answer (Rav Yosef): I discuss dates ready to be (detached and) put on mats.
13.Question: What is ready to be detached is considered detached (i.e. Metaltelim)!
14.Answer (Rav Yosef): I discuss dates that must remain on the tree a little longer.
1.Rif (Bava Metzia 8b): A creditor collects attached Peros. This is like we say, that Shmuel regularly collects even Shevach ha'Magi'a l'Kesafim, i.e. Peros ready to be detached and carried on the shoulder.
2.Rambam (Hilchos Malveh 21:2): A creditor collects attached Peros, even if they do not need the ground, e.g. grapes ready to be detached.
i.Magid Mishneh: He explains Shevach ha'Magi'a l'Kesafim like the Rif, R. Chananel and Rashi. However, Rashi says that they still need the land. The Ramban agrees, for if they do not need the land at all, it is as if they are detached (Kesuvos 51a). He says that also the Rif means this. The Rashba agreed with the Ba'al ha'Ma'or that he does not collect even unfinished Peros, and answered the Gemara in Kesuvos. Rashi's opinion is primary.
ii.Beis Yosef (CM 95 DH v'Chosav ha'Rambam): The Rambam holds like his Rebbi, Ri ha'Levi. R. Meir and Chachamim argue only about Shomrim. For everything else, what is ready to be detached is considered detached.
iii.Question (Lechem Mishneh and Shach 115:18): Why does the Rambam allow collection? This is not a case of Shomrim! The Rambam learned from Kesuvos that we exempt from Shevu'ah only when they need the land a bit!
iv.Answer #1 (Lechem Mishneh): In Kesuvos, we merely say that they are like Metaltelim. Here, even if they are Metaltelim, the buyer never acquired them for he did not detach them, therefore a creditor collects them.
v.Answer #2 (Shach): The Rambam holds that they are like land only regarding Shomrim, for they were meant to stay attached. Here also, the creditor wants them to remain attached to his land so he can collect them.
vi.Drishah (95:5): In Hilchos To'en (5:4) the Rambam said 'grapes ready to be detached...', and added 'this is if they do not need the land any more.' He explains that the Tana'im argue about grapes ready to be detached, but they still need the land a little. The Rambam rules like Chachamim. He distinguished like this so that the Gemara in Kesuvos is like Chachamim.
3.Rosh (Kesuvos 8:7): R. Yonah says that if there was finished produce ready to be detached on her Nichsei Melug when she was widowed or divorced, she gets it. Normally, anything ready to be detached is considered to be detached. Here is different. Chachamim enacted that a husband eats the Peros, i.e. only what he actually detached during the marriage. Ri ha'Levi challenged the Rif from Bava Basra 136a; a buyer is compensated for finished attached Peros when land is taken from him. R. Yosef concluded that the Halachah follows Chachamim. What I said upholds the Rif's ruling that they are considered detached.
4.Rosh (Bava Metzia 1:39): A creditor collects attached Peros almost ready to be detached, but they need the land a bit more. This is like we say in Kesuvos; a creditor collects dates that are ready for mats but still need the land a bit.
1.Shulchan Aruch (CM 115:1): A creditor collects all attached Peros, even if they do not need the ground, e.g. grapes ready to be detached.
i.Prishah (10): The Beis Yosef says that the Tur rules like the Rosh, that if they do not need the ground at all, it is as if they were detached. If so, when the Tur says that a creditor does not collect what was detached, it means (even) what is fully ready to be detached.
ii.Shach (18,19): Why didn't the Rema bring the opinion of Rashi, the Rosh, Tur and many others, that this is only if they need the land a bit?!
iii.Gra (9): This is like the Rif. He did not learn like Rashi, because the Gemara suggested that Shmuel collects only from Shevach ha'Magi'a l'Kesafim. According to Rashi, neither Tana distinguishes like this!
iv.Shach (95:9): The Gemara in Kesuvos says that a creditor or widow (who collects only land) did not rely on collecting attached Peros, for the orphans can harvest them if they want. If they are summonsed to Din, surely they will do so! For everything else, attached Peros are like land. This also explains why slaves of orphans are like Metaltelim for collection; creditors do not rely on them, since the orphans can divert (sell) them. The Rashbam (Bava Basra 128a DH v'Rav) and Ro'oh (cited in Nimukei Yosef Bava Kama 34b) say so. We need not say like the Rosh (Bava Kama 1:14) that one does not collect from Metaltelim acquired Agav, because Agav is mid'Rabanan. Rather, the creditor did not rely on it. The Ba'al ha'Ma'or (Bava Metzia 7a) says that a creditor does not collect attached Peros even if they need the ground. We must say that a creditor does not rely on them, for buyers can detach them.
v.Gra (12): The Rambam (Hilchos Malveh 21:2) agrees about a creditor that it is as if they are attached, because the seller wrote 'I will silence any claims against this sale; the land, money invested in it and Shevach. Regarding orphans, it is as if they are detached.
WHEN DO WE CONSIDER ATTACHED PRODUCE AS IF IT WERE DETACHED? (Bava Kama 77)