Explanation: This is needed only for heirs, for buyers were explicitly taught. He holds that Shibud is not mid'Oraisa, and a loan with a document, which is collected [from heirs] is due to Ne'ilas Delet in front of borrowers (people will refrain from lending);

Also a sale (if a creditor took a field that the borrower sold, the buyer may collect from property that the seller sold afterwards) is due to Takanas ha'Shuk (lest people be afraid to buy).

Implied question: Regarding heirs, there is no reason to distinguish a Milveh Al Peh from a loan with a document! (Only regarding buyers, we can say that he should not lose if he could not have found out about the loan, for it had no publicity.)

Answer: In any case, whenever we are concerned for Ne'ilas Delet regarding buyers, e.g. a loan with a document (i.e. we let creditors collect from property that the borrower sold, lest people refrain from lending)...

Or a loan (obligation) written in the Torah, according to the opinion that it is like [a loan] written in a document, or after he stood in judgment, or if he made his slave an Apotiki (he stipulated that the loan will be paid from him, in all these cases the debt) may be collected also from orphans.

Distinction: However, a Milveh Al Peh, since he was not concerned to make a document to collect from buyers, also now that he cannot collect from heirs, there is no Ne'ilas Delet.

Reference: It says in Bava Kama (11b) regarding the Halachah [that Ula said in the name of R. Elazar] that we collect from slaves, Rav Nachman said to Ula "did R. Elazar say even from orphans?!" [He answered] no, from him (the borrower himself);

[He asked] "from him, he collects even from the shirt on his back!" There, it is explained.

Citation (Kesuvos 17b - Rav Huna): One may not make a Chazakah in a minor's property, even if he matured.

Explanation #1: One opinion explains that an orphan, even if he is an adult, is called a minor regarding his father's property. Chazakah does not help against him, even if he was an adult when his father died.

Rebuttal: Here, it says explicitly that it is a Chazakah when he ate in front of the son and the father the years of Chazakah!

Explanation #2: Rather, only if he was a minor when his father died, it is not a Chazakah, even if afterwards he matured. The Ri said so.

Implied question (Ri): We could have answered that here, there is a document [of sale, which is considered a Mach'ah], and here, there is no document [of sale], so they join [to make a Chazakah] only if there is a document!

Answer: Perhaps the answer given [that the document did not specify the field] is better.

Observation: [Even Shmuel agrees that] there is a case in which a partner has no Chazakah, like it explains below.

Question: If so, the Mishnah should teach that a partner has no Chazakah, even though in some cases a partner has a Chazakah, just like it taught a sharecropper, even though other sharecroppers, who are not of Batei Avos (families that have been sharecropping the field), have a Chazakah!

Answer: We can distinguish these. (Every partner can get a Chazakah, either in half or the entire field. Some sharecroppers cannot make a Chazakah at all.)

Question: What is his source? Perhaps [he is like one who entered the field with permission] regarding that he gets Shevach that is Magi'a l'Kesafim (came through exertion, or Peros that are ready to harvest), like it says below!

Suggestion: The Makshan holds that in every case, he compares him to a sharecropper.

Rejection: Perhaps he compares him to others sharecroppers, who can make a Chazakah, and not to sharecroppers of Batei Avos!

Explanation #1 (Rashi in several places, and the Rashbam): "Magi'a l'Kesafim" is like grapes that are ready to harvest.

Question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (15b) that cases occur constantly, and Shmuel collects for a creditor from Shevach ha'Magi'a l'Kesafim;

If this is grapes ready to be harvested, a creditor does not collect from them, like it says in Kesuvos (50b)!

Citation (50b - Rav Yosef): Give [food] to her (an orphaned daughter) from dates on mattresses.

[Abaye] asked about she is no better than a creditor [who does not collect from Metaltelim of heirs. Rav Yosef answered] "I meant dates ready to be put on mattresses (they are ready to be harvested)."

[Abaye] asked that still, what is ready to be harvested is considered to be harvested (i.e. Metaltelim! Rav Yosef answered) "I meant dates that must remain on the tree a little longer."

Inference: A creditor does not collect from those that are ready to be harvested!

Answer: This is not difficult. Also Rashi does not mean those ready to be harvested immediately. Rather, it is anything that will ultimately be detached, e.g. unripe figs or grapes.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Magi'a l'Kesafim is something that came through exertion.

Proof: It says below (134a) that if [Reuven] says "[Ploni] is my brother", he is not believed [to detract from the shares that Reuven's known brothers inherit], and Ploni divides with Reuven the share that Reuven gets;

If Ploni died, the property [that he took from Reuven's share] returns to its place (Reuven). If Ploni received money from elsewhere [and then died, Reuven's] brothers share it with him (Reuven).

Question (Rava): What is the law of Shevach that the property improved by itself?

There is no question about Shevach ha'Magi'a l'Kesafim. It is as if it fell from elsewhere.

The question is about Shevach she'Eino Magi'a l'Kesafim, e.g. a date tree that became stronger, or land on which a river deposited soil.

Inference: Shevach she'Eino Magi'a l'Kesafim is what comes automatically.

Question #1 (R. Elchanan): Just the contrary, that Gemara is difficult for R. Tam! Why did it change from the initial expression "property that improved by itself, what is the law?"

Afterwards, it says "the question is about Shevach she'Ein Magi'a l'Kesafim." Also initially, it should have said Shevach she'Ein Magi'a l'Kesafim!

Conclusion: This connotes that also Shevach ha'Magi'a l'Kesafim is property that improved by itself!

Question #2 (against R. Tam): Why does it say "such as a date tree that became stronger"? It should have said "Peros that grew by themselves"!

Implied question (against Explanation #1 - Rashba): According to Rashi, that Shevach ha'Magi'a l'Kesafim is Peros, why are they considered property that came from elsewhere, and [Reuven's] brothers share with him?

Also they (his brothers) have Peros in their lands, corresponding to this (what grew on Ploni's trees! Reuven should get back the land and Peros. This should not be considered more than he gave to Ploni.)

Answer: We asked about a date tree that became stronger, or land on which a river deposited soil, if this is like property that came from elsewhere;

All the more so, we should consider Peros like property that came from elsewhere, like is proven regarding a Bechor (below 124a);

Rebbi and Rabanan argue about fodder (immature grain) that became sheaves, or date trees that produced dates, whether or not a Bechor gets a double portion in them;

Even so, they agree about a date tree that became stronger, and land on which a river deposited soil, that he receives [a double portion].

Inference: We consider Peros more like property that came afterwards, than a date tree that became stronger;

We can properly say that his brothers receive a share in Peros, even though also they took corresponding to them in their portion, for they toiled and they consumed;

What the deceased (Ploni) toiled, why shouldn't they receive from his toil, just like [Reuven]? It is as if [the Peros] were detached;

If he detached them and afterwards died, obviously [the brothers] receive with [Reuven]!

Question (against Rashi): Why did [Rav Nachman] need to elaborate and say [also] "Shevach ha'Magi'a l'Kesafim", i.e. Peros of every year, like the law of a sharecropper?

He should have said only [his final words] that he receives in a field not normally planted, like in a field normally planted. This is like the law of a sharecropper!

One who descended [to another's field and planed in it] without permission receives in a field normally planted like the law of a sharecropper, like it says in Bava Metzi'a (101a) one who descended to his friend's field without permission...

We conclude that in a field normally planted, we estimate how much one would pay for someone to plant this field. Rashi explained that this is like the rate of sharecroppers of the city!

Observation: This is fine for R. Tam. It means that he receives only Shevach ha'Magi'a l'Kesafim, i.e. that came through toil, in a field not normally planted, like in a field normally planted, like the law of a sharecropper;

However, what is not Magi'a l'Kesafim, he does not receive like the law of a sharecropper.

Implied question: A sharecropper receives Shevach that comes automatically from elsewhere, like it connotes in Gitin (74b)!

Answer: Here that he entered without permission, the Gemara holds that he does not get Shevach that comes automatically, like a sharecropper would get.

Question: Still, it is difficult, for everywhere (all texts) the text says "and in a field not normally planted", with a Vov. According to [R. Tam's] Perush, it should have said "in a field", without a Vov, since this is one matter!

Answer (to Question (k), for Rashi): In Bava Metzi'a (101a), it says how much one would pay for someone to plant this field. This is not like a sharecropper;

One gives more to a sharecropper, [up to] half or a third [of the Peros], because he constantly engages in it to fix several needs.

Rather, it means how much one would pay a Kablan (someone paid a flat fee for a task) to plant this field, and not descend to work [constantly] in it for sharecropping. Rather, he receives his wage immediately;

He receives more than a day laborer, for a day laborer need not fix matters if they get ruined. (This Dibur continues on the coming Daf.)