Explanation: This refers to Netushim (abandoned property) that R. Shimon ben Gamliel discussed, like we conclude.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If we heard that a captive died, [the one whom we establish over his property] eats all the Peros, and if the owner comes before he eats the Peros, he receives like other sharecroppers, and he returns the rest;

Regarding Netushim, when we did not hear that [the owner] died, he does not eat all the Peros. Rather, we estimate the Peros, and he eats (receives) like other sharecroppers, i.e. a half, a third or a quarter [according to the local custom]. He does not eat anything for free.

Question #1: Why did [Rava] answer above that the Beraisa teaches [that an heir is not authorized] to receive the property and sell it?

He should answer that it teaches [that he is not authorized] to receive the property and eat [the Peros], for he does not receive it even to eat the Peros for free!

Question #2: What was the question afterwards "even his children [are not authorized] at all?

Surely [an heir] does not get [the property] at all, even according to the opinion that we establish, since he receives only like a sharecropper who is a stranger (not a relative)!

Question #3: What was the question from one who spent money on his wife's property? There, he is authorized to eat all the Peros. Here, he gets only the law of a sharecropper!

Question #4: Below, Shmuel said that if a captive left attached Peros, we establish an Apotropos (overseer) to harvest, and afterwards we establish a relative over [the captive's] property;

Why don't we establish a relative from the beginning, since he does not eat the Peros for free?

Explanation #2: Surely, he eats all the Peros for free, and if he fertilized, plowed or planted, and the owner came before he harvested, he receives wages for his toil like a sharecropper;

Rav and the first Tana hold that we do not estimate like a sharecropper. Therefore, we do not establish a relative, lest he cause a loss to [the property];

[He is prone to cause a loss,] for he fears lest the owner come before he harvests and eats, and he will not receive anything. And [therefore,] he will not improve the land;

However, whatever he finds he eats for free, like the law of a relative established over property of a captive.

Support: Now, it is a proper question "since he eats all the Peros, when the owner comes before he gathers, why does he receive like a sharecropper, more than one who spent money on his wife's property...?"

Implied question: Why does it say "there, he was zealous and profited"?

Answer: That is when he heard that the owner is coming. We let [the Apotropos] pick [the Peros], even though they are worth much more than his toil, since if we will not [do so] before [the owner returns], we do not pay him for his toil.

However, here regarding Netushim, if the owner comes, we do not let [the Apotropos] pick [the Peros], since he will not lose anything, since we estimate for him like a sharecropper.

Question: Shmuel already taught this another time!

Answer: It means "even though we establish for [property of] a captive, if he left willingly, we do not establish."

Explanation: Presumably, he does not argue with Shmuel, since he did not say "even one who fled, or even one who left willingly."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since Rav Huna said that we do not establish a relative, this implies that we establish a stranger.

Question #1: Without Rav Huna, several Mishnayos teach that we establish an Apotropos for orphans' property, e.g. (Gitin 52a) "if Beis Din established [the Apotropos], he need not swear [that he did not take any of their property for himself]"!

Question #2: How is it proven from Rav Huna that one cannot make a Chazakah [in a minor orphan's property]? Perhaps if he claims that he ate the years of Chazakah, it helps;

The reason we establish a stranger is because there is no concern for anything! Since we establish, you are forced to say that he [the orphan] has Da'as to say "bring witnesses that you bought from my father";

Also here, he has Da'as to protest at the end of every three years [so the Apotropos will not get a Chazakah]! (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

Suggestion: He [the one who inferred from Rav Huna] holds that it is obvious that [the orphan] does not know to protest at the end of three years, even though he remembers to ask [the Machazik] to bring witnesses of Chazakah, for it is normal to forget to protest at the end of every three years.

Rejection: If so, even without Rav Huna, it is obvious that one cannot make Chazakah [in orphans' property]!

Answer: If not for Rav Huna, from the law that we establish an Apotropos for orphans' property, we could not prove that one cannot make a Chazakah [in minor orphans' property];

Even if the law was that one can make a Chazakah, we are not concerned lest he make a Chazakah, for Beis Din will choose only someone trustworthy, or because [the orphan] knows to protest at the end of every three years, like I explained;

However, since Rav Huna said that we do not establish a relative, if so he is concerned for swindling, and he holds that [the orphan] does not know to protest against a relative, and say "this field is my father's, and it is not your share [of the inheritance]..."

If so, also regarding a stranger, he does not know to protest! Therefore, one may not make a Chazakah.

Question: Just like he has Da'as to tell a stranger to ask (bring) witnesses of a sale, similarly he has Da'as to tell a relative "bring a proof that this was your share [of our inheritance]!

Answer: Regarding a relative, he thinks that [the relative] says the truth, for the field was of their father, and he does not think to say "bring a proof";

However, regarding a stranger, it crosses his mind to say "bring witnesses of a sale."

Question: In Bava Basra (29b), we say that Itda (a document of division) has publicity! (If so, there is no concern!)

Answer: We are more stringent about orphans.

Question: A Mishnah (Gitin 28a) says that if one brings a Get from Chutz la'Aretz, and left [the husband] old or sick, he gives it to [his wife], relying on the Chazakah that [her husband] is alive!

Answer: The grandmother reached 80 years. We say there that if [the husband] reached 80, we are concerned [lest he died].

Question: Below, we say "therefore, we give half to the sister." We should give two thirds, for even if the grandmother died, presumably her daughter did not die!

We cannot say that also the daughter reached 80 years, for if so the grandmother was exceptionally old, and from then we are not concerned lest she died, like it says there "once she lived exceptionally long, we are not concerned."

Note: The first opinion there does not say so. The other opinion explained that we are not concerned "even if he is 100" for this reason. This connotes that all the more so, we are not concerned for someone less than 100! Surely, Tosfos explains like Rashi there, that 90 is exceptionally old (unlike the Ritva, who explains that we are concerned until 100.) Since there is no concern lest a minor give birth, she must be more than 10 years older than her daughter.

Answer #1: Only regarding a Get, we say that the Chazakah is that [the Meshale'ach, i.e. the one who made a Shali'ach] is alive, due to Igun [lest she be unable to remarry], or ruin of (inability to offer) a Korban (we could not offer a Chatas if we were concerned lest its owner died), or Terumah (a Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen could not eat Terumah if we were concerned lest he died);

Here, just the contrary! We are stringent about orphans' property to establish that the grandmother and her daughter died, for we said above that even if they made Itda, we do not we establish [a relative over the property], even though there is publicity

Answer #2: Here that they were captured, we are concerned more lest they died, for [the captors] afflicted them.

Question: We do not establish a minor over property of a captive. Presumably, this is even through an Apotropos, for it connotes that if we knew that the grandmother surely did not die, we would give all the property to the sister;

Question: What is the reason? We should establish half for the child, through an Apotropos!

Answer: Rather, surely in every case we do not establish a minor. Since the minor is the master of the Apotropos, perhaps he will heed the minor and not plow and not seed.

Answer: The Gemara said "half, we establish an Apotropos over it for the child." This is not to eat all the Peros, like a relative established over property of a captive;

Rather, the Apotropos guards [the property] like the law of a sharecropper, in the Chazakah of the grandmother (she is assumed to be the owner), and the minor is fed through this;

This is better than giving [the property] to the sister to eat all the Peros for free, like the law of a relative established on property of a convert.

Implied question: The same applies if he left with a beard. [One who returns] is not believed to say that he is his brother!

Source #1: If [you would not say] so, the rich people could not survive (keep their wealth), for everyone will say "I am your brother"!

Source #2 - Citation (Bava Basra 134a - Mishnah): If one says "this is my brother", he is not believed [to force his known brothers to share their inheritance with the alleged brother].

Answer: Here, Mari bar Isak did not claim Vadai [he is not my brother], rather, "I do not know him." Therefore, had [his alleged brother] left with a beard, [Mari] would not be believed, since he did not contradict him, rather, he said "I do not know him."

Question: Must every rich powerful person bring witnesses that the claimant is not his brother?!

Answer: Here is different, for [his alleged brother] said that he has witnesses, and they are afraid to testify. Rav Chisda told [Mari] to make them testify;

Mari bar Isak said "in any case [if you believe that they fear me], they will testify falsely due to fear of me, and say that he is not my brother, or say that they do not know, even though they know!"

[Rav Chisda] answered that they would not do two [injustices], i.e. firstly to refrain from testifying, and secondly to testify falsely, and say that they do not know, or say that he is not his brother.