Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 20, 2017 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Batra 29

Rava gives a third interpretation of why one can claim ownership over land one has been living in for three years. ย After a few comments by Abaye, Rava clarifies his statement and gives a conclusive explanation. ย Rav Huna says that the three years need to be consecutive. ย Various comments are made on this statement including questions, qualifying statements, etc. ย  The gemara begins to brings actual cases that happened and discuss what the halacha is in the various cases.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื“ืื™ ืœื ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื‘ื ื• ื‘ืชื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ื• ื•ื ื˜ืขื• ื’ื ื•ืช ื•ืื›ืœื• ืืช ืคืจื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืœื ืขืฆื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืขืฆื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืชื“ืข ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืชืชื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ ืœืžืขืŸ ื™ืขืžื“ื• ื™ืžื™ื ืจื‘ื™ื

Because if you do not say so, then when he states: โ€œBuild houses, and dwell in them, and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of themโ€ (Jeremiah 29:5), what halakhic statement was he saying? Rather, he teaches us good advice, and here too he teaches us good advice. The Gemara comments: Know that this was mere advice, as it is written: โ€œAnd put them in an earthen vessel; that they may continue many daysโ€ (Jeremiah 32:14). This is obviously good advice to preserve the items properly, and is not a halakhic statement. Therefore, this is not a proof that the presumption of ownership cannot be established in under three years.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืชื ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ืžื—ื™ืœ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืชืจืชื™ ืžื—ื™ืœ ืชืœืช ืœื ืžื—ื™ืœ

Rather, Rava said a different reason: A person who sees another profiting from his field might waive his rights during the first year, and he might waive his rights for two years, but he will not waive his rights for three years. Therefore, if one does not lodge a protest by the end of the third year, it is tantamount to a concession that the land is not his.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื›ื™ ื”ื“ืจื ืืจืขื ืชื™ื”ื“ืจ ืœื‘ืจ ืžืคื™ืจื™ ืืœืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืจื ืืจืขื ื•ื”ื“ืจื™ ืคื™ืจื™

Abaye said to him: If that is so, when it becomes clear that the land is in fact owned by another and it is returned to its owner, it should be returned, save for the produce that the possessor consumed during the first two years, as the owner waived his rights to it. Why did Rav Naแธฅman say: The land is returned and the produce is returned?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืชื ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ืœื ืงืคื™ื“ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืชืจืชื™ ืœื ืงืคื™ื“ ืชืœืช ืงืคื™ื“

Rather, Rava said a different reason: A person is not particular the first year to lodge a protest, and he is not particular for two years, even though he does not waive his rights to the pro-duce. He is particular to lodge a protest when he sees another profiting from his field for three years. Therefore, if one does not lodge a protest by the end of the third year, it is tantamount to a concession that the land is not his.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื”ื ื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืืœื™ืฉื™ื‘ ื“ืงืคื“ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืืžืืŸ ื“ื—ืœื™ืฃ ืืžื™ืฆืจื ื“ื™ื“ื”ื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœืืœืชืจ ื”ื•ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ื ืชืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ืš ืœืฉื™ืขื•ืจื™ืŸ

Abaye said to him: If that is so, for people such as those of the bar Elyashiv household, who are particular even with regard to one who goes on the boundary of their field, here too, will you say that presumptive ownership is established immediately, as soon as one makes use of their property without their lodging a protest? And if you would say that is indeed the halakha, if so, you have subjected your statement to the varying circumstances of each case, as there will be a different length of time needed to establish the presumption of ownership depending on who the prior owner is. This is untenable.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืชื ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ืžื™ื–ื“ื”ืจ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจื™ื” ืชืจืชื™ ื•ืชืœืช ืžื™ื–ื“ื”ืจ ื˜ืคื™ ืœื ืžื™ื–ื“ื”ืจ

Rather, Rava said a different reason: A person is careful with his document detailing his purchase of land for the first year after the purchase, and he is also careful for two and three years. For more time than that, he is not careful and might discard the document if no one has lodged a protest concerning his possession of the land. Therefore, the Sages ruled that after three years have passed, he can prove his ownership by means of presumptive ownership.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืžื—ืื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืœื ืชื™ื”ื•ื™ ืžื—ืื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืžื—ื™ืช ื‘ืืคืื™ ื”ื•ื” ืžื™ื–ื“ื”ืจื ื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจืื™

Abaye said to him: If that is so, a protest that is lodged not in his presence should not be a valid protest, and if three years pass with no protest in his presence, presumptive ownership should be established even if there was a protest lodged before other people. This is because the one possessing the land can say to the claimant: If you had protested in my presence, I would have been careful with my document and would not have discarded it.

ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื‘ืจืš ื—ื‘ืจื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื•ื—ื‘ืจื ื“ื—ื‘ืจืš ื—ื‘ืจื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื”

The Gemara explains that this claim would not be accepted, be-cause the claimant can say to him: Your friend has a friend, and your friendโ€™s friend has a friend, and the assumption is that word of the protest reached you.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืืžืจื• ื”ื•ื ืฉืื›ืœืŸ ืจืฆื•ืคื•ืช ืžืื™ ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืชื ื™ื ื ื—ื–ืงืชืŸ ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืžื™ื•ื ืœื™ื•ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื™ื•ื ืœื™ื•ื ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžืงื•ื˜ืขื•ืช ื•ืœืขื•ืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืคื•ื–ืจื•ืช ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

ยง Rav Huna says: The three years that the Sages said are required to establish the presumption of ownership is referring to when he worked and profited from the field in consecutive years. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Huna teaching us with this statement? We learned this in the mishna: Their presumption of ownership is established by use for a duration of three years from day to day. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the phrase: From day to day, serves to exclude partial years and to teach that each of the three years must be full, and actually even scattered, i.e., non-consecutive, years are sufficient, therefore, Rav Huna teaches us that the years must be consecutive.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืžื ื•ืžื•ื“ื™ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืืชืจื™ ื“ืžื•ื‘ืจื™ ื‘ืื’ื™

Rav แธคama says: And Rav Huna concedes with regard to locations where they leave fields [bagei] to lie fallow by planting in alternate years, that the three years combine despite not being consecutive, as that is the manner in which owners profit from the land.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžื•ื‘ืจ ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืžื•ื‘ืจ ื•ื”ืื™ ื’ื‘ืจื ืžื•ื‘ืจื” ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ื“ื™ื“ืš ื”ื•ืื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืœืžื™ื–ืจืขื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื“ื ืืจืขื ื‘ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื‘ืื’ื ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื ืœื™ื ื˜ืจ

The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t it obvious that this is the halakha? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this with regard to locations where there are some people who leave the fields to lie fallow and there are some people who do not leave the fields to lie fallow, and this man left the field to lie fallow. Lest you say that the claimant can say to him: If it is so that the land is yours, you should have sown it, therefore, Rav แธคama teaches us that the possessor can say to the claimant: I am not able to hire someone to guard one parcel of land within an entire field, and I acted like those who own other land in this location and let the field lie fallow.

ื•ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ื”ื›ื™ ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ ื“ืขื‘ื“ื ื˜ืคื™

And alternatively, the possessor can say to the claimant: In this manner of farming it is beneficial for me to farm, because the land produces more later, and I do not wish to plant year after year and weaken the soil.

ืชื ืŸ ื—ื–ืงืช ื”ื‘ืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ืชื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ืžืžื ื™ื“ืขื™ ื‘ืœื™ืœื™ื ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™

The Gemara clarifies Rav Hunaโ€™s statement that the presumption of ownership can be established only by consecutive use. We learned in the mishna about the presumptive ownership of houses. But with regard to the use of houses, where the witnesses attesting to its use know who uses the house only in the day, but they do not know who uses the house in the night, how then can one establish the presumption of ownership in the case of a house? The possessorโ€™s use is not consecutive, as it is continually interrupted by the nights.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืืŸ ืžืกื”ื™ื“ ืื‘ืชื™ื ืฉื™ื‘ื‘ื™ ืฉื™ื‘ื‘ื™ ืžื™ื“ืข ื™ื“ืขื™ ื‘ื™ืžืžื ื•ื‘ืœื™ืœื™ื

Abaye said: Who testifies about houses? Neighbors, and neighbors know who is inside in the day and in the night.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืชื• ื‘ื™ ืชืจื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืื ืŸ ืื’ืจื™ื ืŸ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ื“ืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ืชืœืช ืฉื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืžืžื ื•ื‘ืœื™ืœื™ื

Rava said that there is another scenario in which one can bring witnesses with regard to the use of a house. This is such as when two people come and say: We rented the house from him and we lived in it for three years, in the day and in the night. This testimony substantiates that the house was used under the authority of the one who is attempting to prove that he has established the presumption of ownership.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื™ืžืจ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื ื™ ื ื•ื’ืขื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ื”ืŸ ื“ืื™ ืœื ืืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื”ื• ื–ื™ืœื• ื”ื‘ื• ืœื™ื” ืื’ืจ ื‘ื™ืชื ืœื”ืื™

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: How can their testimony be relied upon? These witnesses are biased in their testimony, because if they do not say this testimony, that they rented the house from the possessor for three consecutive years, we say to them: Go and give payment for the rental of the house to that one who is claiming ownership, as the one you paid has not established that he is the true owner.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ ื“ืฉืคื™ืœื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ื ื™ ืžื™ ืœื ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ื™ ืื’ืจ ื‘ื™ืชื ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœืžืืŸ ืœื™ืชื‘ื™ื”

Rav Ashi said to him: Low-level judges rule this way. In other words, only a court composed of ignorant judges would accept the testimony of the renters of the house in a case where they are biased in their testimony. Nevertheless, Ravaโ€™s scenario is still possible, as, are we not dealing with a case where they are holding the money for the payment for the rental of the house, and they are saying to the court: To whom shall we give it? Therefore, they are not biased in their testimony, because they will pay the same amount, regardless of who the actual owner is.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื•ืื™ ื˜ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ืชื• ืชืจื™ ืกื”ื“ื™ ืœืืกื”ื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืชืœืช ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื™ืžืžื ื•ื‘ืœื™ืœื™ื ื˜ืขื ืชื™ื” ื˜ืขื ื”

The Gemara quotes a related statement. Mar Zutra said: And if the claimant claims and says: Let two witnesses come to testify for the possessor that he lived in the house three years in the day and in the night, his claim is a legitimate claim.

ื•ืžื•ื“ื™ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื”ืžื—ื–ื™ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื™ืจื•ืช ื“ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ื˜ืขืŸ ื˜ืขื ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืื ืŸ

And Mar Zutra concedes with regard to peddlers who travel through cities, during which time others might live in their houses, that even though the claimant does not claim that he insists on testimony that there was continuous use, day and night, over three years, we the court claim this for him. Since people know they are traveling salesmen, it is more likely that people lived in their houses without permission and without their knowledge.

ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ื—ื ื•ืชื ื“ืžื—ื•ื–ื ื“ืœื™ืžืžื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื ืœืœื™ืœื™ื ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื

With regard to the requirement for continuous day and night use to establish the presumption of ownership, the Gemara comments: And Rav Huna concedes with regard to a store in the town of Meแธฅoza, which is generally used in the day and is not generally used in the night, that one is not required to use it in the night to establish the presumption of ownership.

ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื•ืจื‘ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื–ื‘ื•ืŸ ื”ื”ื™ื ืืžืชื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืžืจ ืื™ืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ืช ื•ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืช ื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื” ืฉื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืฉืฉื™ืช ื ืคืง ืขืจืขืจ ืขื™ืœื•ื”

With regard to the requirement of continuous use to establish the presumption of ownership, the Gemara relates that Rami bar แธคama and Rav Ukva bar แธคama purchased a maidservant together. One Sage made use of her during the first, third, and fifth years, and one Sage made use of her during the second, fourth, and sixth years. One individual who contested their ownership of the maidservant emerged and claimed that he was the owner.

ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืขื‘ื“ื™ืชื• ื”ื›ื™ ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื ืชื—ื–ืงื• ืื”ื“ื“ื™ ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื“ื™ื“ื›ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืœืขืœืžื ื ืžื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื—ื–ืงื”

They came before Rava for a judgment. He said to them: What is the reason you acted like this, making use of her in alternate years, so that each of you would not establish the presumption of ownership concerning each other by making use of her for three consecutive years? Just as this usage does not establish the presumption of ownership with regard to you, it does not establish the presumption of ownership with regard to others, i.e., the claimant in this case, as well.

ื•ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื“ืœื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขื™ื˜ืจื ืื‘ืœ ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขื™ื˜ืจื ืงืœื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื”

The Gemara adds: And we said this only in a case where it was not written in a document that they are partners and are dividing the use, but if it was written in a document, the document generates publicity that they own the maidservant as partners rather than individually, and they can jointly establish the presumption of ownership.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื›ืœื” ื›ื•ืœื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืจื•ื‘ืข ืงื ื” ื›ื•ืœื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืจื•ื‘ืข

ยง The Gemara continues its discussion of the requirement for full use of land to establish the presumption of ownership. Rava says: If one worked and profited, for three years, from all of the land except for the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova], which he did not use, he acquires all of the field based on presumptive ownership except for that beit rova.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื”ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื”ื™ื ืงื ื™ ืœื” ืื’ื‘ ืืจืขื

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: And we said this ruling only where that beit rova is suitable for planting, but if it is not suitable for planting, he acquires it by means of the acquisition of the rest of the land.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืฆื•ื ืžื ื‘ืžื” ื™ืงื ื” ืืœื ื‘ืื•ืงื•ืžื™ ื‘ื” ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื•ืžืฉื˜ื—ื ื‘ื” ืคื™ืจื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืื•ืงื•ืžื™ ื‘ื” ื—ื™ื•ืชื ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื˜ื—ื ื‘ื” ืคื™ืจื™

Rav Beivai bar Abaye objects to this: If that is so, how could one acquire an area that is only rock by establishing the presump-tion of ownership, as one does not plant rocky land? Rather, the presumption of ownership can be established by standing animals on it or spreading produce on it. Here too, he should be required to stand animals on the beit rova or to spread produce on it. If he did not profit from this small piece of land at all, he has not established the presumption of ownership with regard to it, and acquires only the rest of the field.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ืš ื–ื‘ื™ื ืชื™ื” ื•ืื›ืœื™ืช ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ื‘ืฉื›ื•ื ื™ ื’ื•ื•ืื™ ื”ื•ืื™

ยง The Gemara relates that there was a certain person who said to another: What do you want, i.e., what are you doing, with this house of mine? The other said to him: I purchased it from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: I was among the distant settlements, and was unaware that you were residing in my house, which is why I did not lodge a protest.

ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืจื•ืจ ืื›ื™ืœืชืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื”ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืจืื™ื”

The one residing in the house came before Rav Naแธฅman for a judgment. Rav Naแธฅman said to him: Go clarify your profiting, i.e., prove that you really resided there for three years, and then the case can be judged. Rava said to Rav Naแธฅman: Is this the correct judgment? The halakha is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Therefore, the one who is attempting to take the house from the possessor should have to prove that the other did not reside in the house.

ื•ืจืžื™ ื“ืจื‘ื ืื“ืจื‘ื ื•ืจืžื™ ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ื”ื”ื•ื

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rava and another statement of Rava, and it raises a contradiction between this statement of Rav Naแธฅman and another statement of Rav Naแธฅman. As there was a certain person

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 29

ื“ืื™ ืœื ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื‘ื ื• ื‘ืชื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ื• ื•ื ื˜ืขื• ื’ื ื•ืช ื•ืื›ืœื• ืืช ืคืจื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืœื ืขืฆื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืขืฆื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืชื“ืข ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืชืชื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื—ืจืฉ ืœืžืขืŸ ื™ืขืžื“ื• ื™ืžื™ื ืจื‘ื™ื

Because if you do not say so, then when he states: โ€œBuild houses, and dwell in them, and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of themโ€ (Jeremiah 29:5), what halakhic statement was he saying? Rather, he teaches us good advice, and here too he teaches us good advice. The Gemara comments: Know that this was mere advice, as it is written: โ€œAnd put them in an earthen vessel; that they may continue many daysโ€ (Jeremiah 32:14). This is obviously good advice to preserve the items properly, and is not a halakhic statement. Therefore, this is not a proof that the presumption of ownership cannot be established in under three years.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืชื ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ืžื—ื™ืœ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืชืจืชื™ ืžื—ื™ืœ ืชืœืช ืœื ืžื—ื™ืœ

Rather, Rava said a different reason: A person who sees another profiting from his field might waive his rights during the first year, and he might waive his rights for two years, but he will not waive his rights for three years. Therefore, if one does not lodge a protest by the end of the third year, it is tantamount to a concession that the land is not his.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื›ื™ ื”ื“ืจื ืืจืขื ืชื™ื”ื“ืจ ืœื‘ืจ ืžืคื™ืจื™ ืืœืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืจื ืืจืขื ื•ื”ื“ืจื™ ืคื™ืจื™

Abaye said to him: If that is so, when it becomes clear that the land is in fact owned by another and it is returned to its owner, it should be returned, save for the produce that the possessor consumed during the first two years, as the owner waived his rights to it. Why did Rav Naแธฅman say: The land is returned and the produce is returned?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืชื ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ืœื ืงืคื™ื“ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืชืจืชื™ ืœื ืงืคื™ื“ ืชืœืช ืงืคื™ื“

Rather, Rava said a different reason: A person is not particular the first year to lodge a protest, and he is not particular for two years, even though he does not waive his rights to the pro-duce. He is particular to lodge a protest when he sees another profiting from his field for three years. Therefore, if one does not lodge a protest by the end of the third year, it is tantamount to a concession that the land is not his.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื”ื ื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืืœื™ืฉื™ื‘ ื“ืงืคื“ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืืžืืŸ ื“ื—ืœื™ืฃ ืืžื™ืฆืจื ื“ื™ื“ื”ื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœืืœืชืจ ื”ื•ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ื ืชืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ืš ืœืฉื™ืขื•ืจื™ืŸ

Abaye said to him: If that is so, for people such as those of the bar Elyashiv household, who are particular even with regard to one who goes on the boundary of their field, here too, will you say that presumptive ownership is established immediately, as soon as one makes use of their property without their lodging a protest? And if you would say that is indeed the halakha, if so, you have subjected your statement to the varying circumstances of each case, as there will be a different length of time needed to establish the presumption of ownership depending on who the prior owner is. This is untenable.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืชื ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ืžื™ื–ื“ื”ืจ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจื™ื” ืชืจืชื™ ื•ืชืœืช ืžื™ื–ื“ื”ืจ ื˜ืคื™ ืœื ืžื™ื–ื“ื”ืจ

Rather, Rava said a different reason: A person is careful with his document detailing his purchase of land for the first year after the purchase, and he is also careful for two and three years. For more time than that, he is not careful and might discard the document if no one has lodged a protest concerning his possession of the land. Therefore, the Sages ruled that after three years have passed, he can prove his ownership by means of presumptive ownership.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืžื—ืื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืœื ืชื™ื”ื•ื™ ืžื—ืื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืžื—ื™ืช ื‘ืืคืื™ ื”ื•ื” ืžื™ื–ื“ื”ืจื ื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจืื™

Abaye said to him: If that is so, a protest that is lodged not in his presence should not be a valid protest, and if three years pass with no protest in his presence, presumptive ownership should be established even if there was a protest lodged before other people. This is because the one possessing the land can say to the claimant: If you had protested in my presence, I would have been careful with my document and would not have discarded it.

ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื‘ืจืš ื—ื‘ืจื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื•ื—ื‘ืจื ื“ื—ื‘ืจืš ื—ื‘ืจื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื”

The Gemara explains that this claim would not be accepted, be-cause the claimant can say to him: Your friend has a friend, and your friendโ€™s friend has a friend, and the assumption is that word of the protest reached you.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉืืžืจื• ื”ื•ื ืฉืื›ืœืŸ ืจืฆื•ืคื•ืช ืžืื™ ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืชื ื™ื ื ื—ื–ืงืชืŸ ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืžื™ื•ื ืœื™ื•ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื™ื•ื ืœื™ื•ื ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžืงื•ื˜ืขื•ืช ื•ืœืขื•ืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืคื•ื–ืจื•ืช ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

ยง Rav Huna says: The three years that the Sages said are required to establish the presumption of ownership is referring to when he worked and profited from the field in consecutive years. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Huna teaching us with this statement? We learned this in the mishna: Their presumption of ownership is established by use for a duration of three years from day to day. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the phrase: From day to day, serves to exclude partial years and to teach that each of the three years must be full, and actually even scattered, i.e., non-consecutive, years are sufficient, therefore, Rav Huna teaches us that the years must be consecutive.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืžื ื•ืžื•ื“ื™ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืืชืจื™ ื“ืžื•ื‘ืจื™ ื‘ืื’ื™

Rav แธคama says: And Rav Huna concedes with regard to locations where they leave fields [bagei] to lie fallow by planting in alternate years, that the three years combine despite not being consecutive, as that is the manner in which owners profit from the land.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžื•ื‘ืจ ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืžื•ื‘ืจ ื•ื”ืื™ ื’ื‘ืจื ืžื•ื‘ืจื” ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ืื™ืชื ื“ื“ื™ื“ืš ื”ื•ืื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืœืžื™ื–ืจืขื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื“ื ืืจืขื ื‘ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื‘ืื’ื ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื ืœื™ื ื˜ืจ

The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t it obvious that this is the halakha? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this with regard to locations where there are some people who leave the fields to lie fallow and there are some people who do not leave the fields to lie fallow, and this man left the field to lie fallow. Lest you say that the claimant can say to him: If it is so that the land is yours, you should have sown it, therefore, Rav แธคama teaches us that the possessor can say to the claimant: I am not able to hire someone to guard one parcel of land within an entire field, and I acted like those who own other land in this location and let the field lie fallow.

ื•ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ื”ื›ื™ ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ ื“ืขื‘ื“ื ื˜ืคื™

And alternatively, the possessor can say to the claimant: In this manner of farming it is beneficial for me to farm, because the land produces more later, and I do not wish to plant year after year and weaken the soil.

ืชื ืŸ ื—ื–ืงืช ื”ื‘ืชื™ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ืชื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ืžืžื ื™ื“ืขื™ ื‘ืœื™ืœื™ื ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™

The Gemara clarifies Rav Hunaโ€™s statement that the presumption of ownership can be established only by consecutive use. We learned in the mishna about the presumptive ownership of houses. But with regard to the use of houses, where the witnesses attesting to its use know who uses the house only in the day, but they do not know who uses the house in the night, how then can one establish the presumption of ownership in the case of a house? The possessorโ€™s use is not consecutive, as it is continually interrupted by the nights.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืืŸ ืžืกื”ื™ื“ ืื‘ืชื™ื ืฉื™ื‘ื‘ื™ ืฉื™ื‘ื‘ื™ ืžื™ื“ืข ื™ื“ืขื™ ื‘ื™ืžืžื ื•ื‘ืœื™ืœื™ื

Abaye said: Who testifies about houses? Neighbors, and neighbors know who is inside in the day and in the night.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืชื• ื‘ื™ ืชืจื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืื ืŸ ืื’ืจื™ื ืŸ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ื“ืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ืชืœืช ืฉื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืžืžื ื•ื‘ืœื™ืœื™ื

Rava said that there is another scenario in which one can bring witnesses with regard to the use of a house. This is such as when two people come and say: We rented the house from him and we lived in it for three years, in the day and in the night. This testimony substantiates that the house was used under the authority of the one who is attempting to prove that he has established the presumption of ownership.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื™ืžืจ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื ื™ ื ื•ื’ืขื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ื”ืŸ ื“ืื™ ืœื ืืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื”ื• ื–ื™ืœื• ื”ื‘ื• ืœื™ื” ืื’ืจ ื‘ื™ืชื ืœื”ืื™

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: How can their testimony be relied upon? These witnesses are biased in their testimony, because if they do not say this testimony, that they rented the house from the possessor for three consecutive years, we say to them: Go and give payment for the rental of the house to that one who is claiming ownership, as the one you paid has not established that he is the true owner.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ ื“ืฉืคื™ืœื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ื ื™ ืžื™ ืœื ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ื™ ืื’ืจ ื‘ื™ืชื ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœืžืืŸ ืœื™ืชื‘ื™ื”

Rav Ashi said to him: Low-level judges rule this way. In other words, only a court composed of ignorant judges would accept the testimony of the renters of the house in a case where they are biased in their testimony. Nevertheless, Ravaโ€™s scenario is still possible, as, are we not dealing with a case where they are holding the money for the payment for the rental of the house, and they are saying to the court: To whom shall we give it? Therefore, they are not biased in their testimony, because they will pay the same amount, regardless of who the actual owner is.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื•ืื™ ื˜ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ืชื• ืชืจื™ ืกื”ื“ื™ ืœืืกื”ื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืชืœืช ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื™ืžืžื ื•ื‘ืœื™ืœื™ื ื˜ืขื ืชื™ื” ื˜ืขื ื”

The Gemara quotes a related statement. Mar Zutra said: And if the claimant claims and says: Let two witnesses come to testify for the possessor that he lived in the house three years in the day and in the night, his claim is a legitimate claim.

ื•ืžื•ื“ื™ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื”ืžื—ื–ื™ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื™ืจื•ืช ื“ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ื˜ืขืŸ ื˜ืขื ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืื ืŸ

And Mar Zutra concedes with regard to peddlers who travel through cities, during which time others might live in their houses, that even though the claimant does not claim that he insists on testimony that there was continuous use, day and night, over three years, we the court claim this for him. Since people know they are traveling salesmen, it is more likely that people lived in their houses without permission and without their knowledge.

ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ื—ื ื•ืชื ื“ืžื—ื•ื–ื ื“ืœื™ืžืžื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื ืœืœื™ืœื™ื ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื

With regard to the requirement for continuous day and night use to establish the presumption of ownership, the Gemara comments: And Rav Huna concedes with regard to a store in the town of Meแธฅoza, which is generally used in the day and is not generally used in the night, that one is not required to use it in the night to establish the presumption of ownership.

ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื•ืจื‘ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื–ื‘ื•ืŸ ื”ื”ื™ื ืืžืชื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืžืจ ืื™ืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ืช ื•ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ืช ื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื” ืฉื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืฉืฉื™ืช ื ืคืง ืขืจืขืจ ืขื™ืœื•ื”

With regard to the requirement of continuous use to establish the presumption of ownership, the Gemara relates that Rami bar แธคama and Rav Ukva bar แธคama purchased a maidservant together. One Sage made use of her during the first, third, and fifth years, and one Sage made use of her during the second, fourth, and sixth years. One individual who contested their ownership of the maidservant emerged and claimed that he was the owner.

ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืขื‘ื“ื™ืชื• ื”ื›ื™ ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื ืชื—ื–ืงื• ืื”ื“ื“ื™ ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื“ื™ื“ื›ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืœืขืœืžื ื ืžื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื—ื–ืงื”

They came before Rava for a judgment. He said to them: What is the reason you acted like this, making use of her in alternate years, so that each of you would not establish the presumption of ownership concerning each other by making use of her for three consecutive years? Just as this usage does not establish the presumption of ownership with regard to you, it does not establish the presumption of ownership with regard to others, i.e., the claimant in this case, as well.

ื•ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื“ืœื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขื™ื˜ืจื ืื‘ืœ ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขื™ื˜ืจื ืงืœื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื”

The Gemara adds: And we said this only in a case where it was not written in a document that they are partners and are dividing the use, but if it was written in a document, the document generates publicity that they own the maidservant as partners rather than individually, and they can jointly establish the presumption of ownership.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื›ืœื” ื›ื•ืœื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืจื•ื‘ืข ืงื ื” ื›ื•ืœื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืจื•ื‘ืข

ยง The Gemara continues its discussion of the requirement for full use of land to establish the presumption of ownership. Rava says: If one worked and profited, for three years, from all of the land except for the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova], which he did not use, he acquires all of the field based on presumptive ownership except for that beit rova.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื”ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื”ื™ื ืงื ื™ ืœื” ืื’ื‘ ืืจืขื

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: And we said this ruling only where that beit rova is suitable for planting, but if it is not suitable for planting, he acquires it by means of the acquisition of the rest of the land.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืฆื•ื ืžื ื‘ืžื” ื™ืงื ื” ืืœื ื‘ืื•ืงื•ืžื™ ื‘ื” ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื•ืžืฉื˜ื—ื ื‘ื” ืคื™ืจื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืื•ืงื•ืžื™ ื‘ื” ื—ื™ื•ืชื ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื˜ื—ื ื‘ื” ืคื™ืจื™

Rav Beivai bar Abaye objects to this: If that is so, how could one acquire an area that is only rock by establishing the presump-tion of ownership, as one does not plant rocky land? Rather, the presumption of ownership can be established by standing animals on it or spreading produce on it. Here too, he should be required to stand animals on the beit rova or to spread produce on it. If he did not profit from this small piece of land at all, he has not established the presumption of ownership with regard to it, and acquires only the rest of the field.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ืš ื–ื‘ื™ื ืชื™ื” ื•ืื›ืœื™ืช ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ื‘ืฉื›ื•ื ื™ ื’ื•ื•ืื™ ื”ื•ืื™

ยง The Gemara relates that there was a certain person who said to another: What do you want, i.e., what are you doing, with this house of mine? The other said to him: I purchased it from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: I was among the distant settlements, and was unaware that you were residing in my house, which is why I did not lodge a protest.

ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืจื•ืจ ืื›ื™ืœืชืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื”ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืจืื™ื”

The one residing in the house came before Rav Naแธฅman for a judgment. Rav Naแธฅman said to him: Go clarify your profiting, i.e., prove that you really resided there for three years, and then the case can be judged. Rava said to Rav Naแธฅman: Is this the correct judgment? The halakha is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Therefore, the one who is attempting to take the house from the possessor should have to prove that the other did not reside in the house.

ื•ืจืžื™ ื“ืจื‘ื ืื“ืจื‘ื ื•ืจืžื™ ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ื”ื”ื•ื

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rava and another statement of Rava, and it raises a contradiction between this statement of Rav Naแธฅman and another statement of Rav Naแธฅman. As there was a certain person

Scroll To Top