Yerushalmi Gittin 5:4 ירושלמי גיטין ה׳:ד׳

MISHNAH: If orphans rely on a property owner⁹⁸If orphans are adults (older than 13 years) but not able to act in real estate matters (younger than 20 years) and they seek assistence from a relative or acquaintance, that person is not a guardian but by rabbinic usage he has some rights and obligations of a guardian, in particular to see to it that the produce of the orphan’s fields is tithed so it becomes available for sale or for their own use. In general, a third person cannot give heave and tithe for others; this is another example of a “regulation for the public good.” or if their father appointed a guardian⁹⁹Greek ἐπίτροπος, cf. Bikkurim 1:5, Note 82. for them; these are obligated to tithe their produce. A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear¹⁰⁰At the end of his service, the court shall require him to swear that he retained nothing of the orphan’s property for himself.; if he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear. Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around¹⁰¹The guardian appointed by the father’s will shall not be made to swear, so people will not refuse to serve. The court appointee, who does not have the deceased father’s trust, can be made to swear..

HALAKHAH: “If orphans rely on a property owner, etc.” ¹¹⁰From Terumot 1:1, explained in Notes 61–69. Variants are denoted by ת.(Num. 18:28) “you” excludes partners, “you” excludes guardians, “you” excludes one who gives heave from what is not his. Did we not state (Terumot 3:3): “Partners who gave heave one after the other?” But one must be for Great Heave, the other for heave of the tithe. Did we not infer the laws of the Great Heave from heave of the tithe? But one is for practice, the other for action. “You” excludes guardians; but did we not state: “Orphans dependent on a home owner, or for whom the father had appointed a guardian, must tithe their produce.” The colleagues say, here for a permanent guardian, there for a temporary guardian. Rebbi Yose asked, does that apply to: “he may sell slaves but not real estate?” But here one deals with an adult orphan, there with an underage orphan.

¹¹¹There is a different but parallel treatment of the subject of this paragraph in Baba Qama 4:5 (4b 1.50). Rebbi Joḥanan said, as a matter of principle one does not appoint guardians for orphans to their detriment, only to their profit; but if they are detrimental, they are detrimental¹¹²If the estate of underage minors is sued, the court does not appoint a guardian to conduct their defense but one tells the claimant to wait until the orphans are adults. But if the estate has a claim to pursue, the court may appoint a guardian to prosecute their case; if the guardian is not successful, the orphans cannot sue him.. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, neither as a matter of principle nor as a reaction, neither for profit not for detriment¹¹³All suits involving an estate, whether by a defendant or a claimant, have to be postponed until the orphans are adults.. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “One appoints a guardian for them¹¹⁴Mishnah Baba Qama 1:5: If an animal of an irresponsible person (a minor, an insane, or a deaf-and-dumb person) did damage, the court has to appoint a guardian to take care of the matter. This seems to imply that one appoints guardians for underage orphans who are defendants in a damage suit.” There is a difference about an ox, lest it continue to cause damage¹¹⁵The Mishnah does not express a biblical principle but a rabbinic rule for the public good, that a dangerous animal should be slaughtered to prevent more damage.. If it did do damage, from whom does one take payment? Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the orphans. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, from the guardian¹¹⁶If the animal did additional damage when the guardian already was in charge.. And even if Rebbi Joḥanan never taught this, does not his word imply it since he said if in the end they are detrimental, they are detrimental?

A guardian appointed by the orphans’ father shall be made to swear, for usually he is not checked out¹¹⁷A private person usually does not have the ability to judge the honesty of his friends.. If he was appointed by the court he shall not be made to swear for usually he was checked out. Abba Shaul says, it is the other way around; a guardian appointed by the orphans’ father¹¹⁸This should read: “appointed by the court”. shall be made to swear, for he is like one who is paid¹¹⁹Even if he is not paid, the reputation he obtains by publicly being trusted by the court may be worth money to him. Therefore, a person will not refrain from serving even if he has to swear in the end. The Babli agrees, 52b.; if he was appointed by the court¹²⁰This should read: “appointed by the father.” he shall not be made to swear for for he can say to him, I am doing this as a favor to you. It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan follows the rabbis and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Abba Shaul. Does Rebbi Joḥanan follow the rabbis? Even if he holds with Abba Shaul, a person acts as a trustee¹²¹Tosaphot (52b, s.v. הלכה) quotes a slightly different text: בעי אינש מיתן זוזי “a person would be ready to pay money”. in order to be declared trustworthy¹²²Therefore, he can be made to swear.. Does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina [follow] Abba Shaul? Even if he holds with the rabbis, a person is apt to slip away from an oath but not from payments¹²³If people know they will have to swear, they will not be available to be appointed guardians. They will think that they are competent enough not to have to pay; very few people will refrain from becoming guardians because of the potential liability..