Talmud sobre Ketubot 8:4

⁶⁷Tosephta Ketubot 8:2–3. The Tosephta contains additional statements, found in the parallel in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 28b–29a.“If somebody who works his wife’s property⁶⁸His wife’s paraphernalia property of which he receives the usufruct as payment for his investment in and work on the fields. If he divorces his wife before harvest, he loses all rights to the crop. He therefore has an incentive to harvest as early as possible. has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners⁶⁹Not only kidnap victims but a large class described in the next sentence. Both Talmudim, by endorsing Samuel’s definition, take position against the very wide definition of this Tosephta. heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance⁷⁰He had a reason to work the fields to keep them producing; he is rewarded by the possibility of acquiring the yield even if he has to return the real estate.. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance⁷¹He started to work the field without authorization; if the owner returns before the harvest, he loses his investment. (In the Tosephta he may claim to be rewarded for his investment in money and time by being made a sharecropper. The Babli explains that this applies only if the farmer is appointed by the court to take care of his relative’s property. There is no hint of this in the Yerushalmi.). Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons⁷²He disagrees with the anonymous Tanna and assigns the yield to the person working the field.. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of smashed⁷³The Babli refers to Hos. 10:14. persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known.” Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions⁷⁴The relative who went to work the field may reasonably assume that he would have been appointed to care for the property if the kidnap victim had had time to communicate with him. Therefore, the courts will assign the yield to him.. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping [the relative] off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions⁷⁵Samuel disagrees with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and refuses the harvest to the relative working the field.. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of smashed people⁷⁶The absent person cannot reclaim usufruct the unauthorized relative had from his movables.. RebbiJacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Jehudah: Standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested are movables⁷⁷In the Babli, Šebuot 43a, theparallel statement is attributed to the Tanna R. Meїr; the anonymous majority declares any ripe crop to be under the laws of real estate until harvested. That means that the editors of the Babli rejected the attribution of the statement to Samuel, their highest authority in civil law.. Rav Sheshet asked: Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting⁷⁸There, palm trees are so abundant that it is not necessary to take male flowers and hang them into the crowns of female trees. That means that the trees do not need hard work., is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested⁷⁹No answer is given. The problem is not treated in the Babli since it precludes the basis of the question.?