To’en veNit’an - Chapter 13

I.e., contractors who were hired to build or renovate buildings. The Rambam mentions the laws involving each of the individuals specified in this and the following halachah in greater detail in the subsequent halachot of this chapter.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Batra 3:5), the Rambam states that it was customary for sharecroppers to receive one half of the produce from the field.

This includes a guardian appointed by the court or by the deceased to take care of an orphan’s property until he comes of age, or a guardian willingly appointed by a person to care for his property, as stated in Halachah 7.

Chapter 9, Halachah 1.

The heads of the Jewish community in Babylon.

Hence, the owner refrains from protesting, because he is afraid that the person in possession will harm him.

These individuals are not able to issue a claim that they purchased the property and that will be honored by a court. It is true that they can own property, but since they cannot acquire property, their claim will be rejected (Maggid Mishneh). Accordingly, the fact that they benefited from the property for three years or more is not significant. For as the Rambam states in Chapter 14, Halachah 12, if a person does not have a claim to the property, his manifestation of ownership is of no consequence.
The Ramban and the Rashba differ with the Rambam and maintain that a minor can establish a claim over property. The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 149) explains the Rambam’s position. Since the owner knows that the deeds of a minor are insignificant, he does not trouble himself to issue a protest. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 149:21) quotes the Rambam’s view.

Since these people are mentally incompetent, they are not capable of issuing a protest. Hence, the fact that they did not issue one is not significant.
There are opinions that claim that this phrase refers to all the individuals mentioned in this halachah - i.e., including the exiliarchs, robbers and gentiles. Whether or not this is the intent of the Rambam’s words here, it would appear that he would accept that ruling as mentioned explicitly in Halachah 10 with regard to an exiliarch. See also Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 149:13), which rules that a claim of ownership cannot be established with regard to property originally owned by a robber.

Witnesses who so testify.

I.e., we follow the principle of miggo: Had he desired to lie, he could have told a more effective lie.

This applies even with regard to property that entered his possession before he abandoned his profession (Rambam La’Am).

The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 149) explains that such a sharecropper has the right to work on the family’s fields. They may not remove him from the land.

Since he has worked together with that family for years, there is a measure of trust established between them. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Batra 3:5), the Rambam states that we are speaking about a sharecropper trusted by the owner to the extent that he will let him manage a field by himself. Thus he is considered him comparable to a guardian. Even if such a sharecropper takes all the proceeds of the property for three years, the family members will assume that he will give them all the proceeds for the next three years.

Since he had not worked for the family before, we do not presume an atmosphere of trust.

I.e., he made an agreement with other people to work the land, allowing them to retain a percentage of the crops and requiring them to give him the remainder.

I.e., he was able to parcel out the land, not because it belonged to him, but because he was charged with this responsibility by the owner. Since the sharecroppers were already working on the land, giving them more land to till is not out of the question.

The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 149:29) maintain that a guardian of a portion of a person’s estate may establish a claim of ownership with regard to a portion over which he has no authority.

If the heirs have not come of age, a guardian certainly cannot establish a claim of ownership, because no one can establish a claim of ownership over the property of a minor, as stated in Halachah 2. Even after an heir comes of age, any person must maintain possession for three years from the time the heir comes of age, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 7. After three years such a claim of ownership is, however, accepted. As mentioned in the notes on that halachah, there are authorities who differ with the Rambam concerning that ruling. According to those views, it is necessary to mention the exclusion of guardians who were appointed by adults to care for their property (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 149:46).

I.e., the field is small and if it is divided, neither of the partners will receive a share large enough to be used in an ordinary manner. See Hilchot Sh’chenim 1:4, where this subject is discussed.

The other partner could claim: “Since the field is so small, I thought you did not want to divide its produce every year. So I let you benefit from it for several years in the expectation that you would let me benefit from it for several years."

According to the Rambam, this is a point of fundamental importance. For if the partner derived benefit from only a portion of the field, he does not establish a claim of ownership with regard to the entire field. This must be emphasized because Rabbenu Chanan’el maintains that a claim of ownership can also be established over a portion of a field. The Rambam’s view is also echoed by the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 149:2).

As stated in Hilchot Ishut 12:3, one of the conditions of a marriage is that a husband has the right to benefit from all the property owned by his wife. He may, however, forgo that right, entering into a formal legal agreement to that effect (ibid. 23:3). Even if he does so, however, the fact that he benefits from his wife’s property is not interpreted as a sign that he purchased it. For it is possible that out of her love and respect for her husband, she granted him this privilege despite the fact that he waived the right to it. [See the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Batra 3:5).]
In that source, the Rambam explains that this law refers only to nichsei m’log, property that the husband must return intact to his wife. With regard to nichsei tzon barzel, by contrast, different laws apply. For at the outset, the husband commits himself only to returning the financial value of the property, not the property itself. See Hilchot Ishut, Chapter 16, for a discussion of these terms.

A further concession beyond his waiver to derive benefit from the field.

This would seem to manifest his ownership more powerfully than if he were merely to derive benefit from the field. Indeed, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that if a person makes capital improvements or destroys property on the land, he does establish a claim of ownership. Thus, the Rambam’s statements here appear to be a reversal of his thinking. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 149:9; Even HaEzer 87:1) quotes the Rambam’s statements here. The Ramah states that if the husband damages her property, he establishes a claim of ownership. For the woman could not be expected to remain silent when she sees the value of her property depreciated.

We can assume that out of his desire to please his wife, the husband gave her the right to benefit from a field, although he has no obligation to do so.

The fact that despite the fact that another field was designated for her livelihood, she benefited from this field, would appear to indicate that she had acquired the field. For if not, why was she involved with fields that she did not own?

In this situation as well, since the son is deriving his livelihood from his father and is a member of his household, we assume that neither one objects to the other’s use of his property.

For in such a situation, some of the business elements of the marriage - not to mention the love and trust which should characterize one - no longer apply. Her husband no longer has the right to benefit from her property, and neither spouse could be expected to grant the other privileges to which they are not entitled by law.

I.e., a claim of ownership can be established after three years. Since the conditions that led to the special leniency no longer apply, that leniency is revoked.

They were of the Davidic dynasty and exerted almost regal authority over the Jews of Babylonia. The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 149) quotes his father, Rabbenu Asher, who writes that these rulings apply only to the exiliarchs. Other Jewish communal leaders, even those favored and empowered by the secular legal authorities, are considered to be ordinary people in this regard, for their authority is not rooted in the Jewish tradition of royalty. Sefer Me’irat Einayim 149:18 states that for this reason, the Shulchan Aruch does not quote this law.

These leaders were not always examples of exemplary moral conduct, and it is possible that they would abuse their authority and seize control of a field when they did not have the right.

The property is then returned to them. This oath is required to appease the claim of the person who was in possession of the property.

And his property is returned to him.

I.e., there are witnesses to that effect; alternatively, that it was proven in a court of law that he stole it, and afterwards he took possession of it again (Maggid Mishneh).

They may, however, establish a claim of ownership over other fields (ibid.).

Even if he himself is not known to conduct himself in that manner, since his ancestors are known to conduct themselves in this manner, it is feared that he will follow their example (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 149:19). A person who is known to kill people for financial gain cannot establish a claim of ownership on any of property.

Bava Batra 47a mentions both of these views. The Rambam understands them to be complementary and not conflicting.