Study Bava Metzia folio 39A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud explains: Abandoned property [netushim]; this is referring to property that the owners vacated perforce. When it is written: “But the 7th year you should let it rest and lie fallow [untashtah]” (Exodus 23:11), that is expropriation by edict of the King of the Universe. Forsaken property [retushim]; this is referring to property that the owners vacated of their own volition, as it is written: “A mother was forsaken [rutasha] with her sons” (Hosea 10:14), indicating that the mother was left with the sons, as all the men left.
תנא: וכולם שמין להם כאריס. אהייא? אילימא אשבויין, השתא זריז ונשכר הוה, מאי דאשבח מיבעיא? אלא ארטושים – והא ״מוציאין אותן מידו״ קתני!
A Sage taught with regard to the baraita discussing the case of one who descends to the property of another: And for all of them, the court appraises their work as one would appraise the work of a sharecropper. The Talmud asks: To which property in the baraita is this ruling stated? If we say it is stated with regard to captives’ property, now that the tanna stated that he is diligent and he profits, as he may take as much produce as he wishes, is it necessary to say that he can take a share of what he did to enhance the field? Rather, say that it is stated with regard to forsaken property. But isn’t it taught: The court removes it from his possession? The legal status of the one who labored in the field is not at all similar to that of a sharecropper.
אלא אנטושים. למאן? אילימא לרבנן – הא אמרי מוציאין אותו מידו. אי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל – הא אמר שמעתי שהנטושים כשבויין.
Rather, say that it is stated with regard to abandoned property. The Talmud asks: In accordance with whose opinion? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, don’t they say: The court removes it from his possession? And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, doesn’t he say: I heard that the legal status of abandoned property is like that of captives’ property, and the rights of the one who labored in the field are superior to those of a sharecropper.