Study Bava Metzia folio 110B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
R' Ḥanina thought to say that the land remains in the orphans’ possession, as they are currently in control of it, and therefore the responsibility falls upon the creditor to bring proof. A certain elder said to them: This is what R' Yoḥanan says: The responsibility falls upon the orphans to bring
Abaye said: We learn a similar halakha in the Mishnah (Bava Batra 24b) as well, with regard to a tree planted adjacent to a city. Such a tree must be chopped down in any event, regardless of what preceded what. If the city preceded the tree, the owner is not entitled to compensation, but if the tre
Apparently, since this tree is standing to be chopped down, as it is chopped down regardless of whether it or the town was there first, we say to the owner of the tree: You must bring proof to support your claim that the tree was there before the town and only then you may take its value, although
In the case where the orphans brought proof that they indeed enhanced the land, R' Ḥanina thought to say: When we remove them, we remove them by giving them part of the land equivalent to the value of their enhancement.
The Talmud comments: But that is not so, as we remove them by paying them with money, as derived from a statement of Rav Naḥman. As Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: In 3 cases the court appraises the enhanced value for the parties involved in enhancing a field, and they are paid in money rather t