Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain
What is Mechilah? How the Case of Mistaken Mechilah Answers that Question
Bava Batra 41a
The possibility of having a chazakah of three years over landed property corresponds to presumed mechilah (or waiving of rights) by the original owner? But what is mechilah actually? Is it a type of kinyan, or something else? The case of mechilah b’taut, mistaken mechilah, helps us probe that question.
Dr. Elana Stein Hain – dinanddaf@hadran.org.il
Listen here:
Watch here:
Sources:
Mistakes on Both Sides
- בבא בתרא מא.
רַב עָנָן שְׁקַל בִּידְקָא בְּאַרְעֵיהּ. אֲזַל הַדַּר גּוּדָא בְּאַרְעֵיהּ דְּחַבְרֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל הַדַּר.
The Gemara tells of a related incident: A torrent [bideka] of water swept through Rav Anan’s land, removing the wall which marked the boundary between his land and that of his neighbor. Rav Anan went back and rebuilt the wall, inadvertently placing it in his neighbor’s land. Rav Anan came before Rav Naḥman to ask him what he should do about it. Rav Naḥman said to him: Go return the boundary to its prior position.
וְהָא אַחְזֵיקִי לִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּמַאן – כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמְרִי: כֹּל בְּפָנָיו – לְאַלְתַּר הָוֵי חֲזָקָה? לֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתַיְיהוּ.
Rav Anan replied: Why should I return the boundary? But didn’t I already establish the presumption of ownership of this land? Rav Naḥman said to him: In accordance with whose opinion are you claiming a right to the land? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael, who say: Any taking of possession that is done in the presence of the prior owner is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership immediately? If so, your claim is not accepted since the halakha is not in accordance with their opinion.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא אַחֵיל – דַּאֲתָא וְסַיַּיע בְּגוּדָא בַּהֲדַאי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְחִילָה בְּטָעוּת הִיא. אַתְּ גּוּפָךְ – אִי הֲוָה יָדְעַתְּ לָא עֲבַדְתְּ; כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאַתְּ לָא הֲוָה יָדְעַתְּ, הוּא נָמֵי לָא הֲוָה יָדַע.
Rav Anan said to Rav Naḥman: But didn’t the neighbor waive his ownership of this land, as he came and assisted in the building of the wall with me? Rav Naḥman said to Rav Anan: It is an erroneous waiving, since you yourself would not have placed the wall there if you had known that it was the wrong location for it. Just as you did not know that you were building it in the wrong location, so too, he did not know. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that he did not knowingly waive his ownership of his property.
“Mistake” in Lending, “Mistake” in Selling
- משנה ב”מ ה:ג
…הִלְוָהוּ עַל שָׂדֵהוּ, וְאָמַר לוֹ, אִם אִי אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלִּי, הֲרֵי הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכָךְ הָיָה בַּיְתוֹס בֶּן זוֹנִין עוֹשֶׂה עַל פִּי חֲכָמִים:
…If one lent money to another on the basis of the borrower’s field serving as a guarantee, and said to him: If you do not give me the money now and instead delay your payment from now until three years have passed, the field is mine, then after three years, the field is his. This is permitted even if the field is worth more than the amount of the loan. And this is what Baitos ben Zunin would do, with the consent of the Sages, when he lent money.
- בבא מציעא סו:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַשְׁתָּא דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן אַסְמַכְתָּא לָא קָנְיָא, הָדְרָא אַרְעָא וְהָדְרִי פֵּירֵי. לְמֵימְרָא דְּסָבַר רַב נַחְמָן מְחִילָה בְּטָעוּת לָא הָוְיָא מְחִילָה.
Rav Naḥman said: Now that the Sages have said that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, in a case such as that in the mishna, when one promised another land for the repayment of a debt, if the lender in fact took it, the land must be returned and the value of any produce the creditor consumed from this land must also be returned. The Gemara poses a question: Is this to say that Rav Naḥman maintains that mistaken forgiveness of payment is not valid forgiveness, meaning that if one forgoes repayment of a loan of a certain amount of money in error, he can change his mind? In this case, the borrower had thought that the lender had acquired the land, and he therefore allowed him to consume the produce.
וְהָאִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת דֶּקֶל לַחֲבֵירוֹ. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּאוּ לָעוֹלָם – יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ. מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לָעוֹלָם – אֵין יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ. וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אַף מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לָעוֹלָם יָכוֹל לַחְזוֹר בּוֹ,
But it was stated that amora’im disputed this very issue: If one sells the fruit of a palm tree to another (before the fruit ripens), Rav Huna says: He can retract and cancel the sale until the fruits have come into the world, as the fruit is not yet in existence. But once they have come into the world, even if they are still unripe, he cannot retract, as once the fruits that are being acquired exist, the sale has gone into effect. And Rav Naḥman says: He can retract even once they have come into the world (, as one cannot transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, and the actual transaction was performed before the fruits existed).
וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מוֹדֵינָא דְּאִי שָׁמֵיט וְאָכֵיל – לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ! הָתָם זְבִינֵי, הָכָא הַלְוָאָה.
And Rav Naḥman said: I concede that if the buyer seized the fruit and consumed it, we do not take its value from him. (The reason is that since the seller initially accepted the transaction, although it involved a legal error, it can be assumed that he decided to waive his rights to the fruit and allowed the other to take it. Consequently, it can be demonstrated that Rav Naḥman holds that mistaken forgiveness is forgiveness.) The Gemara rejects this proof: There, the discussion involves a sale, with regard to which it can be said that the seller waived his rights to the fruit. Here, it is referring to a loan, and not requiring the lender to reimburse the borrower for the produce consumed is considered a form of interest.
- תוספות ב”מ סו: ד”ה התם זביני
ומפר״ת הכא הלואה דהלוה לא הקנה אלא בתורת מכר והמכר אינו כלום דאסמכתא לא קניא נמצא דהוי מחילה בטעות ולא הוי מחילה ולכך הדרי פירי אבל אם היה נותנו בתורת רבית לא הוי הדרי דאבק רבית הוא אבל התם גבי פירות דקל זביני ולא מחילה בטעות היא דנהי דיכול לחזור מ״מ אין לו לחזור כי היכי דליקו בהימנותיה ולכך אית לן למימר דאפילו היה יודע שיכול לחזור לא היה חוזר ורבא דהוה בעי לאותביה מאונאה היה סבור דטעמא דרב נחמן דלא מפקינן באי שמיט ואכיל משום דמחילה בטעות הויא מחילה ולפי סברת רבא היה משיבו ומביא ראיה מאיילונית:
- רש”י בבא מציעא סו:
הכא הלואה היא – ומיחזי כרבית שמתחילה בהלואה בא לו…
Here it is a loan – And it looks like taking interest because it originally came to him through a loan. And it is similar to
- הגהות אשרי בבא מציעא ה:לב
…נראה לי דודאי גם רב נחמן סבר דמחילה בטעות הויא מחילה אע”ג דקנין טעות חוזר בדין שיכול לחזור בו כיון שהממון עדיין הוא בידו יש כח בידו לחזור כיון דבטעות הקנהו והקדש נמי לא חייל בטעות כיון דבעינן שיגמור בלבו ואין זה גמר כיון דטעה וכן ההיא דחזקת הבתים דהדר גודא בארעא דלאו דיליה דלא הוי מחילה לא דמיין כלל דהא לא מחל ולא מידי ולא הפקיר מידי אלא דסבור שאין שלו ונמצא שלו א”כ +אבל+ אדם שיש לו ממון ומוכר אותו לחבירו ומוחל לו אע”פ שהוא בטעות זכה חבירו מידי דהוה אהפקירא בעלמא דחשוב הפקר א”כ שכנגדו קנאו ביאוש בעלים…
…It appears to me that Rav Nahman also thought that mistaken mechilah is considered valid mechilah even though a mistaken acquisition is returned; it is logical that one can renege so long as the money is still in their possession because the owner accidentally gave acquisition over it. And hekdesh is not effectuated when there is a mistake because we need the person to have intention, and there can be no intention given the mistake. And likewise in the case of Chezkat Habatim (3rd perek of Bava Batra) where the wall that is in another person’s properly was returned, because that is not mechilah, is not similar to this because the person did not waive their rights and did not make anything hefker, but rather he thought that it wasn’t his, and it turns out that it was. On the other hand, a person who has property and sells it to another person, and waives their right to it, even if it was based on a mistake, the other person acquires it, similar to the case of hefker. In that case, the other person acquires it through the yeush of the original owners…
- קצות החושן קמב:א
וביאור דבריו משום דיאוש אפי’ בטעות מהני דיאוש דאבידה נמי בטעות הוא דאלו הוי ידע היכן האבידה לא היה מייאש וכיון דטעמא דמחילה בטעות לרב נחמן מהני היינו משום יאוש בעלים א”כ הכא שפיר קאמר ר”נ כי היכא דאת לא ידעת הוא נמי לא ידע וא”כ ה”ל מחיל’ בטעות דהא מצד יאוש והפקר לא זכה רב ענן כיון דלא ידע הזוכה ובהפקר היכא דסבר שהוא שלו לא קנה ומצד דעת אחרת מקנה ל”מ דה”ל מחילה בטעות והוא קנין בטעות דל”מ:
And the explanation of his words is that yeush, even mistakenly, works since yeush in the case of a lost item is also based on a mistake – that if the person knew where the lost item was, that person would not despair. And because mistaken mechilah works for Rav Nachman based on yeush by the owners, it makes sense that Rav Nachman said: Just as you didn’t know, neither did he. And therefore, it is mistaken mechilah, and based on yeush and hefker Rav Anan did not acquire the land because he did not know about it either. And in a case of hefker, when someone believes that an item is already theirs, they do not acquire it from hefker. And likewise, another person does not cause acquisition because it was mistaken mechilah which cannot effect a kinyan.
- ירושלמי בבא קמא ד:ח
שׁוֹר שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא לִיסָּקֵל כול׳. תַּנֵּי. שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה יוֹצֵא לִיסָּקֵל וְנִמְצְאוּ עֵידָיו זוֹמְמִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כָּל־הַקּוֹדֵם בּוֹ זָכָה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. יִיאוּשׁ טָעוּת הוּא. וְכֵן עֶבֶד הַיּוֹצֵא לִיהָרֵג וְנִמְצְאוּ עֵדָיו זוֹמְמִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. זָכָה עַצְמוֹ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. יִיאוּשׁ טָעוּת הוּא.
“A bull which is led out to be stoned,” etc. It was stated: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be false, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be killed when his witnesses were found to be false, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.
- בבלי כריתות כד.
אָמַר רַבִּי כְּרוּסְפָּדַאי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל שֶׁהוּזַּמּוּ עֵדָיו – כׇּל הַמַּחֲזִיק בּוֹ זָכָה בּוֹ.
Rabbi Keruspedai says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to an ox that is stoned whose witnesses were rendered conspiring,anyone who takes possession of the ox acquires it, as the owner of the ox relinquished his possession upon hearing that the animal is sentenced to die.
Hadran’s Beyond the Daf shiurim are also available by podcast on
Beyond the Daf is where you will discover enlightening shiurim led by remarkable women, delving deep into the intricacies of Talmudic teachings, and exploring relevant and thought-provoking topics that arise from the Daf.
