brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
If a married woman inherits grape vines or olive trees without the land and they age and are no longer producing fruit they shall be sold and land shall be bought with the proceeds and the husband eats the fruit. (1)
If land was given for a Mashkanta d'Sura and after the lender ate the fruit of three years he claims that the agreement was that he eats the fruit for three years, while the borrower claims the agreement was for two years R. Yehudah says the borrower is believed because he is Muchzak on the land. (2)
R. Kahana says that the lender is believed because he ate the fruit and he is Muchzak on the fruit.
The Halachah is like R. Kahana that the lender doesn't return the fruit because the Safek may eventually be discovered and we don't want Beis Din to be compelled to reverse their Psak.
If the lender ate the fruit of a Mashkanta d'Sura for three years and he claims that the agreement was that he can eat the fruit for five years and he lost his Shtar and the borrower claims that the agreement was for three years R. Yehudah says the lender is believed with a Migo because he could have claimed that he bought the land. (3)
R. Zevid and R. Avira hold that the lender is not believed with a Migo because if he truly had an agreement to eat the fruit of the Mashkanta d'Sura for five years he would have held on to the Shtar. (4)
If a lender who receives a Mashkanta d'Sura for three claims that he bought it he is believed therefore the borrower must make a Mecha'ah (he must protest).
If the owner claims that the sharecropper agreed to receive a third, while the sharecropper claims he receives half R. Yehudah says the owner is believed with a Migo because he could have claimed that he was not a sharecropper and he was only a day worker
R. Nachman says that the owner is not believed with a Migo and the sharecropper receives in accordance with the Minhag of the Medinah.
If orphans claims that they improved the land that was an Aputiki for the debt of their father and the Ba'al Chov of the father claims that the father improved it the Ba'al Chov is believed because he is considered Muchzak since he collects the land in any case. (5)
If it is a Safek if a tree that was planted within fifty Amos of the city was planted before the city existed or after the tree is cut down and the owner doesn't receive compensation. (6)
When a Bechor compensates his brothers for improvements that were made to his portion of the Bechorah he compensates them with money, not with land. (7)
When a Ba'al Chov takes land for payment of his Chov and he compensates the orphans or buyers of the property of his debtor for the improvements it is a Machlokes if he may compensate them with money or he must give them a piece of land.
If the land was an Aputiki for the Chov everyone agrees that they are compensated with money not with land.
Shmuel holds that if the amount that a Ba'al Chov is owed is equal to the value of the land including the improvements he may take the land without compensating the buyer for the improvements.
If someone leases a field for a Shavu'a (a seven year period) for seven hundred Zuz the year of Shvi'is is included.
If he leases a field for seven year for seven hundred Zuz the year of Shvi'is is not included.
A day worker must be paid before the end of the night ad a night worker must be paid before the end of the day.
Someone who works by the hour must be paid before the end of the day.
If someone was working by the week, month, year or seven year period if his work ends during the day he must be paid by the end of the day if his work ends at night he must be paid before the end of the next day.
A person is not obligated to pay his worker until his work is completed.
A person is only transgresses the prohibition of withholding payment of a worker the first day and for subsequent delays he transgresses the prohibition of delaying payment to a debtor.
A BIT MORE
1. The fruit of the Nichsei Melug of a woman belongs to the husband and if she owns vines or trees without the land the vines and trees are considered principle, not fruit, and therefore when they dry up and no longer produce fruit they do not belong to the husband and they are sold.
2. A Mashkanta d'Sura is a Mashkon which the lenders eats the fruit of the land for an allotted number of years and after the allotted years are up he returns the land to the borrower and the debt is considered repaid.
3. Since the lender already at the fruit for three years he has a Chazakah on the land and if he claimed that he bought the land he would be believed and therefore he is believed with a Migo that the Mashkanta d'Sura was for five years.
4. Although a person who has a Chazakah on land is believed if he says he bought it and he lost the Shtar but that is because a Shtar for a purchase is only necessary for proof that he bought it and after three years he thinks that no one will question any more that the land is his and the Shtar is no longer needed. However, a Shtar for a Mashkanta d'Sura is always needed because the land in truth is not his and there is always a concern that his right to eat the fruit of the land for five years will be challenged and therefore he will hold on to the Shtar. Consequently when he claims he lost the Shtar we do not believe him and he is only claiming that he lost the Shtar because he wasn't to hold on to the land for longer than it actually states in the Shtar.
5. A Ba'al Chov may not collect from the improvements that the orphans made on the land that they inherited from their father and if the Ba'al Chov collects the land for their debt he must compensate the orphans for the improvements that they made. Rava holds since the land is an Aputiki of the debt and the Ba'al Chov collects the land together with the improvements regardless of the improvements were made by the father or the orphans he is considered Muchzak and therefore the burden of the proof is on the orphans to prove that they improved the land and not their father.
6. A tree that is planted within fifty Amos of a city must be cut down even if it was panted before the city existed, however if the tree was panted before the city existed the owner of the tree is compensated for the tree. If it is a Safek which one was first since the tree is cut down in any case the residents of the city are considered Muchzak and the burden of proof is on the owner of the tree to prove that the tree was there first.
7. A Bechor does not take a portion of Bechorah from improvements that are made to the land after the death of the father and therefore he must compensate the brothers for the improvements that were made to the portion of Bechorah and he may compensate them with money instead of giving them apiece of the land.
If the owner claims that the sharecropper agreed to receive a third, while the sharecropper claims he receives half R. Yehudah says the owner is believed with a Migo because he can claim that he was only a hired worker, while R. Nachman says that the owner is not believed with a Migo and the sharecropper receives in accordance with the Minhag of the Medinah. Rabeinu Yonasan says that according to R. Nachman he is not believed with a Migo that he could have said he was a hired worker because if he was a hired worker there would have been a Kol. However, the Nimukei Yosef says that although he has a Migo he is not believed with a Migo to contradict the Minhag ha'Medinah because it akin to a Migo against witnesses.
If the payment to a worker is already passed due the Ba'al ha'Bayis doesn't transgress the prohibition of withholding payment however he is still obligated to pay immediately. If he continues to withhold payment he transgresses a Lav d'Rabanan. (Shulchan Aruch CM 339:8)
Next Daf Index to Revach for Maseches Bava Metzia