Bava Metzia

'Abandoned' implies against their will, as is is written, But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and abandon it,  [i.e.,] by royal dispensation;  whereas 'forsaken' implies voluntarily, as it is written, The mother shall be forsaken  of her children. A Tanna taught: And for all these a valuation is made as for an aris.  To what does this refer? Shall we say, To captives: if he is considered 'a zealous man who profits thereby,'  can there be a question concerning his own improvements!  But if to forsaken property — surely it is taught that they are ejected therefrom! — Hence It must refer to abandoned [property]. [Then] according to whom? Shall we say, according to the Rabbis: but they rule that he is ejected therefrom. If R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, surely he observed, 'I have heard that abandoned are as captives' [estates]! — 'They are as those of captives', but not altogether so:  'as those of captives,'in that they are not ejected therefrom; 'but not altogether so,' for there [sc. in the case of captives' estate] he is considered a zealous man who profits thereby, whereas here a valuation is made for him as for an aris. Now, wherein does it differ from what we learnt: If a man incurs expenditure on his wife's property, [whether] he expended much and enjoyed little [usufruct] or the reverse, what he expended he expended, and what he enjoyed he enjoyed!  This is analogous only to what we learnt:  If a man incurs expenditure for the property of his wife, a minor, he is regarded as though he had incurred it for that of a stranger.  This shows that since he [her husband] could not place full reliance,  the Rabbis enacted a measure on his behalf,  in order that he might not cause them [the wife's estates] to deteriorate;  so here too, the Rabbis enacted a measure on his behalf, so that he might not cause them [the abandoned estates] to deteriorate. 'And for all of these a valuation is made as for an aris.' What does 'all of these' include? — It includes R. Nahman's dictum in Samuel's name: If a man is taken captive, his next of kin is authorised to enter into his estates. If he leaves voluntarily, his next of kin is not permitted to enter upon his estates.  Now R. Nahman, giving his own opinion, said: A fugitive is as a captive. Why does he flee? Shall we say, on account of poll-tax? But that is voluntary!  — But [he means] one who flees on account of political offences. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: If a man is taken captive, and leaves standing corn to be reaped, grapes to be vintaged, dates to be harvested, or olives to be gathered, Beth din enter his estate and appoint a steward who reaps, vintages, harvests and gathers; after that the next of kin is permitted to take possession.  Then let a permanent steward be appointed!  — A steward is not appointed for bearded men. R. Huna said: A minor is not permitted to enter upon a captive's estates, nor the next of kin upon a minor's estates, nor a next of kin of a next of kin upon a minor's estates.  'A minor is not permitted to enter upon a captive's estates,' lest he injure them. 'Nor a next of kin of a next of kin upon a minor's estates' — this refers to a brother on the mother's side.  'Nor a next of kin upon a minor s estates:' since he [the minor] cannot protest, he may take presumptive possession thereof.  Said Raba: It follows from R. Huna's dictum that one cannot claim presumptive ownership of a minor s estate,