Question (Mishnah): If a married woman inherited old vines or date trees, we sell the wood to buy land and her husband eats the Peros.

Answer #1: The Mishnah says that 'they grew old'.

Answer #2: We established the Mishnah (in Kesuvos) to be when she inherited trees in another's field. (Since she has nothing after they are cut, Abaye agrees that they are considered principal.)

A document (of Mashkanta) said 'years' without specifying how many. Reuven (the lender) says that it was for three years, and Shimon (the borrower) says that it was for two.

(Rav Yehudah): If Reuven already ate the Peros for three years, he must pay for the last year. When in doubt, we establish land to belong to the original owner (Shimon);

(Rav Kahana): Our question is about the Peros, which are with Reuven. The Chazakah favors him, he need not pay.

The Halachah follows Rav Kahana.

Question: The Halachah follows Rav Nachman (in monetary laws), who says that when in doubt, we apply Chazakah to the land and say that it belongs to the original owner!

Answer: That is when the doubt will never be resolved (e.g. two expressions contradict each other, and we do not know which to follow);

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.

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

Rav Papa: Rav Zvid and Rav Avira argue with Rav Yehudah.

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

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!

Chachamim would not enact something that enables the lender to steal!

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

Question: If the land has no taxes or trenches, what will be?

Answer: He must protest (tell people) that the land was not sold, it is being eaten for Mashkanta. (This obligates one who claims that he bought the land to guard the document.)

Question: If he did not protest, what will be?

Answer: He caused his own loss through his negligence.

(Rav Yehudah): If Reuven (a sharecropper) claims that Shimon hired him on condition to receive half the Peros, and Shimon says that he promised to give a third, Shimon is believed;

(Rav Nachman): We follow the local custom.

Suggestion: Rav Yehudah can agree with Rav Nachman. Rav Yehudah teaches about a place where the custom is that sharecroppers get a third.

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, rather, he is only a hired worker.

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?

Answer #1 (R. Chanina): The land is in the Chazakah of the orphans. Shimon must bring proof.

Rejection and Answer #2: R. Yochanan said that the orphans must bring proof.

Question: What is R. Yochanan's reason?

Answer: Since Shimon is destined to collect the land, it is as if he already collected it (he is Muchzak).

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.

Since it may be cut in any case, the owner must bring proof to collect;

Here also, in any case Shimon collects the land. We are unsure whether Shimon must compensate for the improvements, so the orphans must bring proof to collect.

The orphans proved that they improved the land.

(R. Chanina): Shimon must let them keep a piece of the land worth as much as the Shevach (increased value).

Rejection: No, he may give them money.

(Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): In three cases we evaluate the Shevach (and the one who took the land pays for 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 Shevach), a creditor or widow collecting (a debt or a Kesuvah) from orphans, and a creditor collecting from someone who bought the borrower's land after the loan.

Question (Ravina): Does Shmuel really hold that a creditor pays a buyer for Shevach when he takes the land?

Contradiction (Shmuel): A creditor collects the Shevach. (He need not pay for it.)

Suggestion: Perhaps Shmuel says that a creditor pays for fruit that is almost ready to be harvested, but he collects fruit that needs to remain attached for a while.

Rejection: Shmuel often authorized a creditor to collect fruit almost ready to be harvested.

Answer: A creditor collects the Shevach for free if he is owed the value of the land and the Shevach;

If not, he must return the value of the Shevach. Shmuel taught that he may return money.

Question: 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;

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 Shevach should be considered like partial payment, so you must let me keep their value in land!

Answer: The case is, the land was made an Aputiki. The loan will be collected only from it.

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

If he rents for seven years for 700 Zuz, Shemitah is not counted among the seven years.

The following are the periods for paying workers. A worker hired for a day collects the entire night (i.e. he must be paid that night). One hired for a night collects the coming day. One hired by the hour collects the entire night or day,

If one hired for a week, month, year or Shemitah cycle ends working during the day, he collects the entire day. If he ends working at night, he collects the entire night and day.

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

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

Question: Perhaps the former verse discusses one hired for the night, and the latter verse discusses one hired for the day!

Answer: Wages need not be paid before the job is finished. We cannot obligate one to pay a day worker during the day (or to pay a night worker at night).

(Beraisa): "Lo Salin" already forbids keeping a worker's wages the entire night . What does "Ad Boker" add?

Answer: This teaches that one transgresses only the first morning.

Question: If he further delays paying, what is the law?

Answer (Rav): He transgresses 'Bal Tishaheh' (delaying payment).

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