Yerushalmi Ketubot 9:3 ירושלמי כתובות ט׳:ג׳

MISHNAH: If he left produce taken from the ground¹⁰⁴Or any other movables not in the actual possession of the deceased., the one who takes them first¹⁰⁵On condition that he have a legal claim on the estate, as widow or creditors do. acquires them. If the widow acquired more than her ketubah sum, or the creditor more than his claim, the remainder, Rebbi Ṭarphon says, should be given to the weakest among them¹⁰⁶The excess over the claim has to be assigned by the court. A detailed study of the divergent interpretations of this Mishnah in Yerushalmi and Babli was made by I. Francus, שיטת הבבלי והירושלמי בתפיסת מטלטלין לגביית, Sinai 86 (1979/1980), 136–148.. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not show mercy in law! But it should be given to the heirs since all others have to swear, only the heirs do not have to swear.

HALAKHAH: “If he left produce taken¹⁰⁷In this and the preceding Mishnah, the Mishnah text differs in a few details from the common reading of most Mishnaiot but the text quoted in the Halakhah is the standard Mishnah text.,” etc. Both Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, if they were collected at a trading place¹⁰⁸“A place of Saracens.” The problem discussed here is quite different from that discussed in the Babli, 84b, by the same authors. In the Yerushalmi, it is supposed that the acquirer removes the produce from the public place since it is obvious that it would not be his when left in the public place. But if the produce was already in a place belonging to the claimant, according to Rav and R. Simeon ben Laqish “a person’s courtyard acquires for him automatically” (Babli Baba meṣi‘a 10b). For R. Joḥanan, “a person’s courtyard acquires for him only by a conscious act.” Therefore, in a situation where an unlearned person could think that anything in a private domain to which the owner has a claim is automatically his, we may assume that the conscious act of acquisition is missing. This argument assumes that the first part of the Mishnah is everybody’s opinion and the difference between R. Ṭarphon and R. Aqiba refers only to the excess.
In the Babli, the entire first part of the Mishnah is considered R. Ṭarphon’s and everybody agrees that “a person’s courtyard acquires for him automatically”; cf. Note 106.. But if somebody collected it in his house, his house acquired for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he collected it in his house, his house did not acquire for him. For he thinks that they are his but they are not his. Does from this follow how the owner acquires his produce¹⁰⁹The ripe produce is ownerless by biblical decree. Naturally, the owner of the property has the same right to take it as does everybody else. Anybody but the owner acquires simply by taking. How does the owner acquire, that taking from him would be theft? in a Sabbatical year? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, from the moment he put them into his vessel. Rebbi Yose said, even if he put them into his vessel he did not acquire, for he thinks that they are his but they are not his¹¹⁰He can acquire only by a) putting the produce into his vessel and b) declaring that it is his..

That widow took a slave girl¹¹¹She took her as a servant from her husband’s estate as part payment of her ketubah. The case is also quoted in Qiddušin 1:3 in the discussion whether slaves are acquired under the rules of movables or of real estate.. The case came before Rebbi Isaac who said, what she took, she took. Rebbi Immi took her away, for she thought that she was hers but she was not hers¹¹²If the widow could not point to an act of acquisition, the fact that the girl served her when she was a wife and continued to serve her when she was a widow does not make her the widow’s peoperty.. A similar case: The father of the sons of Shammai died and bequeathed a goat to them. The creditor came and took it. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who said, he took his own property. Did we not state that if either an heir or a creditor came and took, one does [not]¹¹³This word was written by the scribe; it was deleted by the first corrector and, therefore, is missing in editio princeps. But the partial quote in Halakhah 8:10 proves that the original text was correct. remove from his hand; for they thought they were theirs but they were not theirs. Rebbi Jacob bar Zabdi said, Rebbi Abbahu agrees that if they¹¹⁴The creditor can take an unsecured part of the debtor’s estate only if the heirs did not act as owners. The moment they acted as owners, and the father had not told them to liquidate his debts, the debtor can make himself paid only through regular foreclosure procedures in court. sold it, or gave it as a pledge, or moved it to another place, if then the creditor came and took it one removes it from his possession.

Think of it, if they were exempt from swearing¹⁰²In Sefer Ha-iṭṭur I, 23b (Note 16), followed by Rosh 9:2, the reading is הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁפְטָדוּם מִן הַשְּׁבוּעָה “Think of it, if he exempted them from swearing”, i. e., the debtor agreed to a clause in the mortgage contract which exempted the creditor from swearing to his heirs. In the version of the ms., there are additional cases when the creditor is by law exempted from swearing; for example, if the due date is later than the debtor’s death (then the debt certainly was not paid) or if the debtor before his death acknowledged the debt.? One is biblical¹⁰³Possession by the heirs is automatic by biblical law; all others have to prove their claims in court., the other is not biblical.