Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

And the debt was equivalent to - or exceeds - the value of the field.

Although the gentile erred in ignoring the proper legal channels and taking the field by force, the sale is still binding.

Since the gentile had a right to the land because of the debt, his acquisition - and sale - are effective.

The Rambam’s ruling is dependent on his interpretation of Gittin 58b. Rashi, the Ra’avad and Rabbenu Asher interpret that passage differently. On the basis of their interpretation, the Tur (Choshen Mishpat 236) explains that the purchaser does not have a right to the field if the original owner is willing to pay his debt, for the field was never taken away from him by any judicial process.
The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 236:7) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. Sefer Me’irat Einayim 236:14 and the Siftei Cohen 236:3 question why the Ramah does not quote the opinion of the Tur.

The following are the laws of Sikarikon described by the Mishnah (Gittin 55b). This was, unfortunately, a fairly common occurrence in the era of the Roman occupation of Eretz Yisrael, when Roman officers and those under their protection would oppress the Jewish people, with no respect for law. From the fact that these laws were quoted by later authorities, including the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 236), we can conclude that such events took place in other periods of Jewish history as well.

The Ramah states that if the property was sold, and the owner claims afterwards that he had the funds necessary to repurchase the property but was not given the opportunity, and the purchaser denies that claim, the onus of proof is on the owner. Since the property is presently in the possession of the purchaser, the owner must prove his claim. Sefer Me’irat Einayim 336:5 states that according to the views mentioned in the following note, the Ramah’s ruling is not applicable.

There are some who interpret the Rambam’s wording to imply that if the owner does not have funds available even if it is sold within the first twelve months, the purchaser has a right to acquire the land. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3) do not share this conception and maintain that the owner always has the right to redeem his land within the first twelve months. Nevertheless, from the phrase “if the property has remained in the possession of the oppressor for more than twelve months,” Sefer Me’irat Einayim 236:1 infers that the original owner has twelve months to raise the money to repurchase his property.

As the Rambam continues to illustrate, the value of the land that the owner receives is equivalent to one third of the price the purchaser paid. Gittin, loc. cit. states that the owner is given the option to decide whether he desires the land or the money.

Sefer Me’irat Einayim 336:3 states that even if the purchaser claims to have paid the market value of the property, he must give the original owner the portion stated by the Rambam.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:2) states that if the price paid for the property is not a matter of public record, the purchaser’s word is accepted.

It is more fit for use as an orchard than as a field for grain or vegetables.

This term has a specific meaning. As stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 5, the intent is that if the increase in the property’s value is greater than the expenses the squatter undertook, the owner is required to reimburse him only for the expenses. If the expenses he undertook are greater than the increase in the property’s value, he receives reimbursement for the expenses only to the extent of the increase in value.
This ruling is given because the owner of the field may claim that he had no intention of using the field to plant trees.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that this halachah is a continuation of the previous one, applying only in a field that is not appropriate for growing trees. The Kessef Mishneh differs and maintains that it applies in all instances. Sefer Me’irat Einayim 375:4 appears to favor the interpretation of the Kessef Mishneh.

I.e., and receive nothing for your labor.

The Ra’avad states that this law does not apply in Eretz Yisrael. Orchards are more valuable than fields for the land as a whole. Hence, because of the importance of settling Eretz Yisrael, each individual is asked to sacrifice his personal desires. The Maggid Mishneh differs and interprets the halachah as applying only in the instance in which it is more appropriate to use the field to grow other crops. He maintains that since the field is more appropriate for other crops, there is no obligation to use it as an orchard.

Because of this rationale, this halachah applies not only in Eretz Yisrael, but also in the diaspora. Compare to Hilchot Sh’chenim 4:10.

I.e., its quality and appearance conform to the local norms.

Since the owner consented to this person’s working the field, it is as if he undertook these expenses himself.

Since the person who planted the field received the owner’s permission, the owner must accept the consequences. Rabbenu Asher differs with the Rambam regarding this point and maintains that since the field is not fit to be used for planting trees, the one who tilled the field must bear the burden if the expenses were greater than the increase in value.

I.e., the difference between his expenses and the increase in value is evaluated, and he receives a share equivalent to that given to other sharecroppers in that city.

As the Maggid Mishneh explains in his gloss on Halachah 12, a husband ordinarily has the rights to all the benefits from his wife’s property until he divorces her. Afterwards, he is judged at a disadvantage. If he spends more than the value of the improvement of the field, he is granted only the value of the improvement of the field.
This halachah applies only in the case of a wife below the age of majority, whose marriage to her husband can be dissolved through the rite of mi’un. Her husband is given full permission to use her property, lest he hesitate to do so out of fear that at any moment his wife will terminate their marriage.

The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 178:3) states that a partner who invests in a field and does not improve the field does not receive reimbursement for his investment.

Rabbenu Asher and the Tur (Choshen Mishpat 375) differ and maintain that if the field is not fit for planting trees, and a squatter plants trees without the owner’s permission, he receives only his share of the value of the improvement of the field, even when his expenses were greater.

As stated above, this term has a specific meaning. If the increase in the property’s value is greater than the expenses the squatter undertook, the owner is required to reimburse him only for the expenses. If the expenses he undertook are greater than the increase in the property’s value, he receives reimbursement for the expenses only to the extent of the increase in value.
This ruling is given because the owner of the ruin may claim that he had no desire to rebuild the ruin at this time.
The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 375:6) differs and states that this ruling applies only when the ruin is located in a place where rebuilding it would be undesirable. Generally, as the Rambam states in Halachah 6, it is considered desirable to build a home in a courtyard or to rebuild a home that had been built there, and a squatter who rebuilds it is given the advantage when the improvement he brought about is evaluated.

I.e., the squatter who rebuilt the building, not the legal owner of the property.

I.e., “since I am not getting full reimbursement for the improvements I made, I am removing them.”

For destroying the house he built does not cause damage with regard to any future building.

I.e., “do not want to reimburse you at all for what you built.”

Because the ruin as rebuilt without permission.

Even if the improvements are worth more than the expenses, as explained in the notes on Halachah 7, the amount of the expenses is also significant in determining the person’s share, and an oath is therefore required. See Sefer Me’irat Einayim 375:17.

This oath was instituted by our Sages out of fear that a person would demand more than what he is entitled to.

The Tur (Choshen Mishpat 375) apparently quotes the Rambam, but uses the expression “Let the builders come,” implying that the evaluation should be made by tradesmen.

I.e., he would rather avoid taking an oath, because of its severity. He is therefore willing to accept payment according to the minimum prices.

For the purpose of the oath - to ensure that the squatter would not be asking for more than what is due him - has been accomplished by the evaluation.

The word “only” implies that the person is making a sacrifice. Sefer Me’irat Einayim 375:19 interprets this as referring to a person who is judged at an advantage and is entitled to receive his expenses because they exceeded the improvement of the property. He, however, does not desire to take an oath regarding his expenses, nor does he have the means to prove how much he spent. He therefore states: “Reimburse me only for the improvement of the property. That is obvious and can be evaluated easily.”

For the value of the improvement is something that can be evaluated by experts.

Unless the owner can bring witnesses who testify that he paid the person who tilled the field.

This oath is necessary to negate the owner’s claim.

Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the person who tills the field.

Workers who till the land for a percentage (usually a third or a fourth) of the crop.

According to Torah law, all property owned by a woman is given to her husband to manage. He must take responsibility for it, and he is entitled to the benefits from it for the entire duration of the marriage (Hilchot Ishut 12:5).

I.e., he is familiar with agriculture and could have worked the land himself.

I.e., it is assumed that he would have worked the fields himself. If he chose not to do so, the people he hired are his responsibility.

This term has a specific meaning. As stated above, the intent is that if the increase in the property’s value is greater than the expenses the squatter undertook, the owner is required to reimburse him only for the expenses. If the expenses he undertook are greater than the increase in the property’s value, he receives reimbursement for the expenses only to the extent of the increase in value.
The Rambam’s ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 88:12). The Beit Shmuel 88:22 explains that this applies only when the husband has not benefited at all from his wife’s field.

And thus it is as if the woman invited them to work her fields herself. For she had no other alternative; she could not rely on her husband and would have to have hired an outside person.