Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/375

Paragraph 1- If one goes down to another’s field without permission and plants it, and the field was meant to be planted, we would appraise how much one would want to give to have this field planted, and the worker would collect that amount from the owner. If the field is not meant to be planted, we would appraise for the worker and he would have the lower hand. A standard vineyard is meant to be planted. If one does a favor for another without permission, see above Siman 364. Similarly, if one learns with another’s child without the father’s knowledge, see above 335:1.

Paragraph 2- If the owner of the field tells the worker to uproot the tree and go, we would listen him. If the worker said he is removing his tree, however, we would not listen to him, because it weakens the ground.

Paragraph 3- If one goes down to another’s field without permission, and plants or builds, and the owner comes and completes the building or guards what was planted or anything similar where he shows his satisfaction with that the worker did and that he is happy about it, we would appraise and the worker would have the upper hand. If the owner originally said to uproot the tree and go, however, the owner of the tree can do so even if the owner of the field later retracts.

Paragraph 4- If one goes down to another’s field with permission, even if he planted a field not generally planted, we would appraise for him and he would have the upper hand. If the expenses were more than the appreciation, he would collect the expenses, and if the appreciation was more than the expenses, he would collect the appreciation. If the owner of the field is himself a sharecropper, the law would revert to that which a field that is not generally planted. We would, however, appraise how much he would give not to have to trouble himself to do the planting.

Paragraph 5- A husband in his minor-wife’s usufruct properties and a partner who has a share in the field have the status of those who go down with permission, we would appraise for them and they would have the upper hand.

Paragraph 6- If one goes down to the ruin of another and builds without permission, we would appraise for him and he would have the lower hand. If the owner of the building says he is taking his wood and stones, we would listen to him. If the owner of the property told him to take what he built, we would listen to him. This is only in the case of a ruin that was not generally rebuilt. If it is one that is generally rebuilt, however, or if is a place where the standard ruin is rebuilt, the law is the same as courtyards, which will be discussed shortly.

Paragraph 7- Courtyards are fit to be built and to add houses and upper stories on them. Thus, one who builds in another’s courtyard is like one who plants a field meant to be planted. We would appraise how much a person would give to have such a building built. This assumes the building is something that is appropriate for that courtyard, based on local custom. The builder cannot say he is taking his buildings. If the builder rented the courtyard out to others and accepted payment, the amount would be deducted from his expenses, even if it is not a field generally rented out. If the builder lived here and cause any amount of loss, he must pay for all that he benefited, as was discussed above in Siman 263. If Reuven had a shaky house and left the city, and Shimon came and lived there and incurred expenses to prevent the house from falling, and he plastered it with whatever it needs so that it does not fall, Reuven must pay Shimon but he does not have to give him that which he plastered because he can say he didn’t need it. Once Reuven gives what he owes Shimon, Should would leave the house.

Paragraph 8- In any case where we appraise, regardless of whether the worker had the upper hand or lower hand, he would not collect anything until he swears while grasping a holy item how much he spent. If the worker says that the judges should come and appraise the expenses, and the matter is reevaluated to them, and they would appraise the wood, stones, plaster and employment costs with the lowest estimates, we would listen to him and he can collect without an oath. The same applies where one is just collecting appreciation and he had the upper hand, and he would not need an oath.

Paragraph 9- In any case where we appraise for the worker and he collects, if the owner claims he gave it and the worker says he did not receive it, the worker is believed and would swear he did not collect anything and then he can collect because we tell the owner of the field that we did not yet appraise for him nor does he know how much he is supposed to give. If they appraised for him, however, and they told the owner to give and he claims he already gave, although the worker did not yet swear, the owner of the field is believed. He would swear a heses oath that he gave and would be exempt, because real property remains in the domain of the owner.