Halacha
הלכה א
בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ הַלּוֹקֵחַ בֵּין שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה בֵּין שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים מֵאֲלֵיהֶן. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם שָׁבְחוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן טוֹרֵף כָּל הַשֶּׁבַח וְאִם הִשְׁבִּיחוּ מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה גּוֹבֶה חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח. כֵּיצַד. רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ חוֹב עַל שִׁמְעוֹן מָאתַיִם וּמָכַר שִׁמְעוֹן לְלֵוִי שָׂדֶה בְּמָנֶה וְהוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ לֵוִי הוֹצָאוֹת וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה מָאתַיִם. כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא רְאוּבֵן לִטְרֹף מִלֵּוִי טוֹרֵף מִמֶּנָּה בְּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁל חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח. וְאִם הִשְׁבִּיחָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּקְרָה בְּדָמִים אוֹ עָלוּ בָּהּ אִילָנוֹת גּוֹבֶה אֶת כֻּלָּהּ. הוֹרוּ חֲכָמִים גְּדוֹלִים וְאָמְרוּ לֹא יְהֵא הַלּוֹקֵחַ רַע כֹּחוֹ מֵהַיּוֹרֵד לִשְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת שֶׁשָּׁמִין לוֹ וְיָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה לְפִיכָךְ אִם הִשְׁבִּיחַ מֵאָה וְהוֹצִיא חֲמִשִּׁים נוֹטֵל כָּל הַהוֹצָאָה וַחֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח הַיָּתֵר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה וְהַחֲצִי עִם הַקֶּרֶן טוֹרֵף בַּעַל חוֹב [וּדְבָרִים שֶׁל טַעַם הֵם וְכָךְ רָאוּי לָדוּן] וְחוֹזֵר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְגוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן מִנִּכְסֵי שִׁמְעוֹן אַף מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁמָּכַר אוֹ נָתַן מֵאַחַר זְמַן שֶׁמָּכַר בּוֹ לְלֵוִי. אֲבָל הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁטָּרַף מִמֶּנּוּ בַּעַל חוֹב בֵּין בְּחֶצְיוֹ בֵּין בְּכֻלּוֹ אֵין לֵוִי גּוֹבֵהוּ אֶלָּא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁתַּקָּנַת עוֹלָם הִיא שֶׁלֹּא יִגְבֶּה הַשֶּׁבַח וְלֹא הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל הַגַּזְלָן וְלֹא מְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה. וּמִקֻּלֵּי כְּתֻבָּה שֶׁלֹּא תִּטְרֹף אִשָּׁה מִן הַשֶּׁבַח כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וְלָמָּה יִטְרֹף בַּעַל חוֹב חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח בִּלְבַד הַבָּאָה מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה עַצְמָהּ לְפִי שֶׁהַשֶּׁבַח בָּא לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מֵרְאוּבֵן וּלְאַחַר שֶׁמָּכַר לְלֵוִי וְנִמְצָא רְאוּבֵן וְלֵוִי כִּשְׁנֵי בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְהַשֶּׁבַח בַּנְּכָסִים שֶׁבָּאוּ לוֹ אַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁהֵן חוֹלְקִין כְּאֶחָד כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ רְאוּבֵן שֶׁלָּוָה מִשִּׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה וְכָתַב לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת וְחָזַר וְלָוָה מִלֵּוִי מָאתַיִם וְכָתַב לוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת וְקָנָה אַחַר כָּךְ שָׂדֶה וּמְכָרָהּ לִיהוּדָה בְּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים וְהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ יְהוּדָה בְּהוֹצָאָתוֹ וַהֲרֵי הִיא שָׁוָה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת טוֹרֵף שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי הַקֶּרֶן וְחוֹלְקִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשָׁוֶה וְנִמְצָא בְּיַד זֶה חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים וּבְיַד זֶה חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים. וְחוֹזְרִין שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי וִיהוּדָה שְׁלָשְׁתָּן וְחוֹלְקִין מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁל שֶׁבַח עַל הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ. נִמְצָא שִׁמְעוֹן טוֹרֵף מָנֶה שֶׁלּוֹ מִשָּׂדֶה זוֹ וְלֵוִי טוֹרֵף מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁבְעָה וּמֶחֱצָה וִיהוּדָה נוֹטֵל מִן הַשֶּׁבַח שְׁנַיִם וְשִׁשִּׁים וּמֶחֱצָה. וְכָזֶה הֵן חוֹלְקִין אֲפִלּוּ הֵן מֵאָה:
כסף משנה
1.
When a creditor expropriates a field, he may also expropriate the increase in value that the purchaser brings about within the field. This applies whether the field increases in value because of an investment, or it increases in value as a matter of course.There is, however, a difference between the two instances. If it increases in value as a matter of course, the creditor may expropriate the entire increase in value. If it increased in value because of an investment, the creditor may expropriate only half the increase.
What is implied? Reuven was owed a debt of 200 zuz by Shimon. Shimon sold a field to Levi for a maneh. Levi made an investment in the field and caused its value to increase and it is now worth 200. When Reuven expropriates it from Levi, he expropriates it from him for 100 and also the 50 that constitutes half the increase of value. If it increased in value on its own accord - e.g., the price rose or trees grew - he can expropriate the entire amount.
Great sages issued a ruling stating that a purchaser should not have lesser legal power than a person who occupies a field belonging to a colleague without permission, in which instance the increase in the field's value is appraised, and the squatter is given the weaker position. Therefore, if the field increased 100 zuz in value and Levi spent 50, Levi should receive all of his expenses and half of the increase in value beyond the expenses. The other half of the increase in value, and the principal, should be expropriated by the creditor. These are words of logic, and it is appropriate to rule accordingly. The purchaser then returns and expropriates the principal from Shimon's property, including even property that he sold or gave away after the time he sold this field to Levi. The increase in value that the creditor expropriated from Levi, the purchaser - whether half the increase in value or the entire increase - Levi may then expropriate only from property in the possession of Shimon. For it is an enactment instituted for the sake of society not to expropriate a property's increase in value, nor produce eaten by a thief, nor the sustenance given a widow and the deceased's daughters from property that has been sold. The rationale is that these are matters that have no limit. And it is one of the leniencies associated with a ketubah that a woman is not granted the opportunity of expropriating the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from a property's increase in value.
Why is a creditor able to expropriate only half the increase of value that comes after the investment was made? Because the increase in value comes after Shimon, the original owner borrowed money from Reuven and sold the property to Levi. Thus, Reuven and Levi can be considered to be two creditors of Shimon's and the increase in the value of the field as an increase in the value of his property that came after he borrowed from both of them. In such an instance, they divide the increase equally, as we have explained. Accordingly, the following rules apply in the ensuing circumstance. Reuven borrowed a maneh from Shimon, and in the promissory note wrote that he is extending the lien to: "the property that I will acquire in the future." He then borrowed 200 zuz from Levi, and in the promissory note wrote that he is extending the lien to: "the property that I will acquire in the future." He then purchased a field and sold it to Yehudah for 150 zuz. Yehudah made an investment and caused its value to increase, and ultimately it was worth 300 zuz. Shimon and Levi expropriate the principal and divide it equally. Thus, each receives 75 zuz.
The three - Shimon, Levi and Yehudah - then divide the 150 zuz of the field's increase in value according to the principles that we explained. Thus, Shimon expropriates the complete payment of the maneh owed him from this field. Levi expropriates 137 1/2, and Yehudah receives 62 1/2 from the field's increase in value. They should divide the increase in value in this manner. These principles apply even if there are 100 creditors.
הלכה ב
כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל הַלּוֹקֵחַ אֵינָן נִטְרָפִין מִמֶּנּוּ. אֲבָל הַפֵּרוֹת הַמְחֻבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן צְרִיכִין לַקַּרְקַע כַּעֲנָבִים שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְהִבָּצֵר הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מֵהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁגּוֹבֶה מִן הַשֶּׁבַח:
כסף משנה
2.
All of the produce that the purchaser consumed, however, is not expropriated from him. The produce that is attached to the land, by contrast, including even the produce that no longer needs the nurture of the land - e.g., grapes that are ready to be harvested - may be expropriated by a creditor in the same way as he expropriates the property's increase in value.הלכה ג
מַתָּנָה שֶׁשָּׁבְחָה מֵחֲמַת הוֹצָאָה אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִשִּׁבְחָהּ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא רוֹאִין כַּמָּה הָיְתָה שָׁוָה בִּשְׁעַת מַתָּנָה וְגוֹבֶה. וְאִם שָׁבְחָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת כֻּלָּהּ. וְאִם קִבֵּל הַנּוֹתֵן אַחֲרָיוּת הַמַּתָּנָה הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנָּה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁגּוֹבִין מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. וְלָמָּה יִטְרֹף בַּעַל חוֹב חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח מִן הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְלֹא יִטְרֹף מִמְּקַבֵּל מַתָּנָה כְּלוּם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר כּוֹתֵב לַלּוֹקֵחַ בִּשְׁטַר מְכִירָה שֶׁאֲנִי מְחֻיָּב לְךָ בַּקֶּרֶן וּבֵעָמָל שֶׁתַּעֲמל וּבַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁתַּשְׁבִּיחַ וְעָלַי אַחֲרָיוּת הַכּל וְרָצָה הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְקִבֵּל דָּבָר זֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ יָרַד עַל תְּנַאי זֶה שֶׁאִם יִלָּקַח מִמֶּנּוּ הַשֶּׁבַח יַחְזֹר עַל הַמּוֹכֵר. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא כָּתַב כְּבָר נוֹדַע שֶׁזֶּה דִּין הַמּוֹכֵר עִם הַלּוֹקֵחַ. אֲבָל הַמַּתְנֶה שֶׁאֵין שָׁם תְּנַאי זֶה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִשֶּׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָהּ בְּהוֹצָאָתוֹ כְּלוּם:
כסף משנה
3.
When the recipient of a present invests in it and causes its value to increase, the creditor may not expropriate any of its increase in value. Instead, we evaluate its worth at the time the present was given and allow him to expropriate that amount. If, however, it increases in value as a matter of course, the creditor may expropriate the entire field. If the person giving the present accepts responsibility for it, the creditor may expropriate the increase in value from this field just as he would if it were in the possession of a purchaser.Why is a creditor given the right to expropriate half of a property's increase in value from a purchaser, but not from a person who receives a present? Because the seller of the property wrote to the purchaser in the deed of sale: "I am obligated to you for the principal, the labor you invest in it, and the increase in value that you will bring to it. I take responsibility for everything." The purchaser accepted this stipulation. For the purchaser took possession of the field on the condition that if the increase in the value of the field was expropriated from him, he would seek recompense from the seller. Even if this stipulation was not written in the deed of sale, it is a matter of public knowledge that this is the law governing the seller's responsibility to the purchaser. With regard to a present, by contrast, this stipulation does not apply. Hence, a creditor may not expropriate any increase in value that the recipient of a present brought about through investment.
הלכה ד
וְכֵן יְתוֹמִים שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ הַנְּכָסִים אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִן הַשֶּׁבַח כְּלוּם. אֲבָל אִם שָׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים מֵאֲלֵיהֶן גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח כֻּלּוֹ:
כסף משנה
4.
Similarly, if orphans who inherit an estate increase its value, a creditor of their father may not expropriate any of its increase in value. If, however, the property increases in value as a matter of course, he may expropriate the entire increase.הלכה ה
בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁטָּרַף בְּחוֹבוֹ מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לוֹ מִן הַקֶּרֶן וַחֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח רוֹאִין הַנִּשְׁאָר מִן הַקַּרְקַע אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ תְּעָלָה לַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר לוֹ בַּשָּׂדֶה בַּיִת תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין וּבַגִּנָּה בַּיִת חֲצִי קַב יִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בָּהּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְאִם לֹא נִשְׁאַר לוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁאִלּוּ יְחַלֵּק יִהְיֶה שֵׁם כֻּלּוֹ עָלָיו נוֹתֵן לוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב אֶת דָּמָיו:
כסף משנה
5.
The following laws apply when a creditor expropriates property for a debt owed him from a purchaser from the principal and half of the increase in the property's value. We then consider what remains of the landed property. If the land that remains would be of value to the purchaser - e.g., in a field, an area where nine kabbin of grain could be sown, in a garden, an area where half a kab of vegetables could be sown - the creditor and the purchaser should become partners with regard to the land. If the property is not large enough to be divided in a manner that the smaller portion of sufficient size would be referred to as a field or as a garden, the creditor should reimburse the purchaser financially for the increase in the value of the field, as is due him.הלכה ו
הָיְתָה הַשָּׂדֶה אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי בַּעַל חוֹב נוֹטֵל אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְרוֹאִין חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח הַנִּשְׁאָר לַלּוֹקֵחַ אִם הָיָה חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח יֶתֶר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה נוֹטֵל הַהוֹצָאָה מִבַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב שָׂדִי הוּא שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָה וְהַנִּשְׁאָר לוֹ מִן הַשֶּׁבַח נוֹטֵל מִן הַמּוֹכֵר וְאִם הָיָה חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח פָּחוֹת מִן הַהוֹצָאָה אֵין לוֹ מִן הַטּוֹרֵף אֶלָּא דְּמֵי חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח וְחוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מִן הַמּוֹכֵר חֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח שֶׁנִּטְרַף בִּלְבַד:
כסף משנה
6.
The following rules apply when a field was designated as an ipotiki. The creditor may expropriate the entire field. We consider the half of the field's increase in value which must be repaid to the purchaser. If half of the increase in value exceeds the purchaser's investment, he should collect the amount he invested from the creditor. He is given only this amount, because the creditor can tell him: "It is my field that increased in value." He should collect the remainder of the money due him from the field's increase in value from the seller.If half of the field's increase in value is less than the purchaser's investment, the purchaser should be reimbursed by the person who expropriated the field for only half of the field's increase in value. He then collects from the seller the other half of the field's increase in value.
הלכה ז
בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁבָּא לִטְרֹף מִן הַיְתוֹמִין. יְתוֹמִים אוֹמְרִים אָנוּ הִשְׁבַּחְנוּ וּבַעַל חוֹב אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא אֲבִיכֶם הִשְׁבִּיחַ. עַל הַיְתוֹמִים לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. הֵבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵם הִשְׁבִּיחוּ שָׁמִין לָהֶן אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח וְאֶת הַהוֹצָאָה וְנוֹטְלִין הַפָּחוּת שֶׁבִּשְׁנֵיהֶן וּמַעֲלֶה אוֹתָן בְּדָמִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה שָׂדֶה זוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עָשָׂהוּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי אִם רָצוּ הַיְתוֹמִין לְסַלֵּק בַּעַל חוֹב בְּדָמִים מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ וְאִם רָצוּ נוֹטְלִין מִן הַקַּרְקַע שִׁעוּר שֶׁבַח שֶׁלָּהֶן:
כסף משנה
7.
When a creditor comes to expropriate property from heirs, and the heirs claim: "We caused the value of the property to increase," but the creditor claims: "Perhaps it was your father who caused the property to increase in value," the burden of proof is on the heirs.If the heirs bring proof that they increased the value of the property, we evaluate the increase and their expenses. They receive the lesser of the two, and they are given this amount in money.
When does the above apply? When the field was designated an ipotiki. If, however, it was not designated an ipotiki, if the heirs desire, they have the right to pay the creditor the debt he is owed and absolve his claim. Or if they desire, they may take a share of the land that is equivalent to the value of the increase they brought to the value of the property.