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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 21, 2017 | 讻状讛 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 30

讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讻诇 谞讻住讬 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 诪讝讘讬谞讗 诇讱 讛讜讗讬 讛讛讬讗 讗专注讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讬拽专讬 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讛讬讗 讜讗讬拽专讜讬讬 讛讜讗 讚诪讬拽专讬讗 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜拽诪讗 讘讬讚讗 讚诇讜拽讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛

who said to another: I am hereby selling to you all of the property that I own of the house of bar Sisin. There was a certain parcel of land that was called: Of the house of bar Sisin. The seller said to the buyer: This parcel of land that I own is not actually of the house of bar Sisin, and it is merely called: Of the house of bar Sisin, and it is not included in the sale. They came before Rav Na岣an for judgment, and he established the land in the possession of the buyer. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Is this the halakha? Isn鈥檛 the halakha that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and the land should remain in the possession of the seller?

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讗 讗讚专讘讗 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara continues: There is a difficulty from one statement of Rava to another statement of Rava, and there is also a difficulty from one statement of Rav Na岣an to another statement of Rav Na岣an, as in the first case, where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, Rav Na岣an ruled in favor of the claimant, and Rava ruled in favor of the possessor; while in the second case, that of the property of bar Sisin, their opinions were reversed.

讚专讘讗 讗讚专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 诪讜讻专 拽讗讬 讘谞讻住讬讛 讛讻讗 诇讜拽讞 拽讗讬 讘谞讬讻住讬讛

The Gemara answers: The contradiction between one statement of Rava and another statement of Rava is not difficult, because there, in the case of the property of bar Sisin, the seller had been established as having the land in his property, which is why Rava rules in his favor. But here, in the case where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, the buyer is established as having the house in his property.

讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讜诪讬拽专讬讗 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 注诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 专诪讬讗 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讚诇讗讜 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讚谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 拽讬讬诐 砖讟专讱 讜拽讜诐 讘谞讬讻住讬

The contradiction between one statement of Rav Na岣an and the other statement of Rav Na岣an is not difficult as well, because there, since the seller said to him: I am hereby selling you all of the property that I own of the house of bar Sisin, and this parcel of land is called: Of the house of bar Sisin, it is incumbent on him to reveal that the parcel under dispute is not of the house of bar Sisin. But here, in the case where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, it should not be any different from a case where the possessor is holding a document as evidence that he purchased the house. Wouldn鈥檛 we then say to him: First ratify your document, and only then be established in the property? In this case as well, since his presumptive ownership is in place of a document, he needs to clarify the matter by means of witnesses.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘谞转讬讛 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖讜拽讬 讘专讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬 住讛讚讬 讚讻诇 砖转讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬转 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬 讘砖讜拽讗讬 讛讜讛 讟专讬讚谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讻诇 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬 讟专讬讚 讘砖讜拽讗

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this house of mine? The possessor 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 in the outer marketplaces, and was unaware that you were residing in my house, and therefore did not lodge a protest, so your profiting does not establish the presumption of ownership. The possessor said to him: But I have witnesses that every year you would come here for thirty days and had an opportunity to know that I was residing in your house and to lodge a protest. The claimant said to him: I was occupied with my business in the marketplaces for those thirty days. Rava said: A person is apt to be occupied with business in the marketplace for all of thirty days, and accepted his claim.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻诇谞讬讗 讝讘讬谞转讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬 讚讝讘谞讛 诪讬谞讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 诇讗讜 拽讗 诪讜讚讬转

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so, who told me that he purchased it from you. The claimant said to him: Don鈥檛 you concede

讚讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讚讬讚讬 讛讬讗 讜讗转 诇讗 讝讘讬谞转讛 诪讬谞讗讬 讝讬诇 诇讗讜 讘注诇 讚讘专讬诐 讚讬讚讬 讗转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬谞讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

that this land is formerly mine, and that you did not purchase it from me? Go away; I am not legally answerable to you. Rava said: The claimant stated the halakha to the possessor, as this is a legitimate claim, and Rava accepted his claim.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻诇谞讬讗 讝讘讬谞讗 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇谞讬讗 讙讝诇谞讗 讛讜讗

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so and then I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: So-and-so is a robber who robbed me of the field, and he did not have the authority to sell it to you.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗转讗讬 讗讬诪诇讻讬 讘讱 讜讗诪专转 诇讬 讝讬诇 讝讘讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖谞讬 谞讜讞 诇讬 讛专讗砖讜谉 拽砖讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬谞讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

The possessor said to him: But I have witnesses that I came and consulted with you, and you said to me: Go purchase the land, indicating that you conceded that he had the authority to sell it. The claimant said to him: The reason that I advised you to purchase it was because the second person, i.e., you, the possessor, is amenable to me, while the first, i.e., the purported thief, is more difficult than he, i.e., I prefer to litigate with you rather than with him. Rava said: The claimant stated the halakha to the possessor, as this is a legitimate claim, and Rava accepted his claim.

讻诪讗谉 讻讗讚诪讜谉 讚转谞谉 讛注讜专专 注诇 讛砖讚讛 讜讞转讜诐 注诇讬讛 讘注讚 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛砖谞讬 谞讜讞 诇讬 讛专讗砖讜谉 拽砖讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is Rava鈥檚 statement? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Admon? As we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 109a): With regard to one who contests ownership of a field, claiming that a field possessed by someone else actually belongs to him, and the claimant himself is signed as a witness on the bill of sale of the field to that other person, Admon says: His signature does not disprove his claim of ownership of the property, as it is possible that the claimant said to himself: The second person is amenable to me to deal with, as I can reason with him, while the first owner, who sold the field to the current possessor, is more difficult to deal with than he. And the Rabbis say: He lost his right to contest, as he signed a bill of sale that states that the field belongs to the possessor. Rava鈥檚 ruling appears to be in accordance with the individual opinion of Admon, and not with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 注讘讚 诇讬讛 诪注砖讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讘讜专讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚诪讬拽专讬 讜讗诪专

The Gemara explains: You may even say that Rava鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. There, in the case of the mishna in tractate Ketubot, by signing the bill of sale the claimant performed an action indicating that the field was not his for the benefit of the possessor of the field, but here, in Rava鈥檚 case, there was no action, only speech, and a person is apt to casually say statements, and he does not lose his right by virtue of this.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻诇谞讬讗 讝讘讬谞转讛 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇谞讬讗 讙讝诇谞讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗转讬转 讘讗讜专转讗 讜讗诪专转 诇讬 讝讘谞讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讝讘讜谉 讚讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讝讘讬谉 讚讬谞讬讛

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so and then I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: So-and-so is a robber who robbed me of the field, and he did not have the authority to sell it to you. The possessor said to him: But I have witnesses that you came to me at night and you said to me: Sell it to me, indicating that it is not your land, as if it were yours, you would have demanded that I return it without your paying for it. The claimant said to him: I said to myself: Let me purchase the benefit of avoiding my litigation in order to reclaim my land. Rava said: A person is apt to pay money to purchase the benefit of avoiding his litigation.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻诇谞讬讗 讝讘讬谞讗 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 谞拽讬讟谞讗 砖讟专讗 讚讝讘谞讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讗 讗专讘注讬 砖谞讬

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so and then I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, indicating that he possessed it for three years, as this is the minimum number of years required for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: But I am holding a document stating that I purchased it from that seller four years ago. Therefore, if it was sold to you three years ago, as you claim, he did not have the authority to sell it at that time.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 转诇转 砖谞讬 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讟讜讘讗 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚拽专讜 诇砖谞讬 讟讜讘讗 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛

The possessor said to him: Do you maintain that when I said: I profited from the land for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, that I was saying I worked and profited from the land for precisely three years? What I actually was saying was that I worked and profited from the land for many years and thereby established the presumption of ownership. Since my purchase predated yours, it was effective. Rava said: It is common for people to refer to many years as: Years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, and his claim is accepted.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讻诇讛 砖讘注 讚拽讚讬诐 讞讝拽讛 讚讛讗讬 诇砖讟专讗 讚讛讱

The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only if he profited from the land for seven years, so that presumptive ownership of this possessor preceded the document of that claimant.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 30

讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讻诇 谞讻住讬 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 诪讝讘讬谞讗 诇讱 讛讜讗讬 讛讛讬讗 讗专注讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讬拽专讬 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讛讬讗 讜讗讬拽专讜讬讬 讛讜讗 讚诪讬拽专讬讗 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜拽诪讗 讘讬讚讗 讚诇讜拽讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛

who said to another: I am hereby selling to you all of the property that I own of the house of bar Sisin. There was a certain parcel of land that was called: Of the house of bar Sisin. The seller said to the buyer: This parcel of land that I own is not actually of the house of bar Sisin, and it is merely called: Of the house of bar Sisin, and it is not included in the sale. They came before Rav Na岣an for judgment, and he established the land in the possession of the buyer. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Is this the halakha? Isn鈥檛 the halakha that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and the land should remain in the possession of the seller?

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讗 讗讚专讘讗 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara continues: There is a difficulty from one statement of Rava to another statement of Rava, and there is also a difficulty from one statement of Rav Na岣an to another statement of Rav Na岣an, as in the first case, where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, Rav Na岣an ruled in favor of the claimant, and Rava ruled in favor of the possessor; while in the second case, that of the property of bar Sisin, their opinions were reversed.

讚专讘讗 讗讚专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 诪讜讻专 拽讗讬 讘谞讻住讬讛 讛讻讗 诇讜拽讞 拽讗讬 讘谞讬讻住讬讛

The Gemara answers: The contradiction between one statement of Rava and another statement of Rava is not difficult, because there, in the case of the property of bar Sisin, the seller had been established as having the land in his property, which is why Rava rules in his favor. But here, in the case where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, the buyer is established as having the house in his property.

讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讜诪讬拽专讬讗 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 注诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 专诪讬讗 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讚诇讗讜 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讚谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 拽讬讬诐 砖讟专讱 讜拽讜诐 讘谞讬讻住讬

The contradiction between one statement of Rav Na岣an and the other statement of Rav Na岣an is not difficult as well, because there, since the seller said to him: I am hereby selling you all of the property that I own of the house of bar Sisin, and this parcel of land is called: Of the house of bar Sisin, it is incumbent on him to reveal that the parcel under dispute is not of the house of bar Sisin. But here, in the case where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, it should not be any different from a case where the possessor is holding a document as evidence that he purchased the house. Wouldn鈥檛 we then say to him: First ratify your document, and only then be established in the property? In this case as well, since his presumptive ownership is in place of a document, he needs to clarify the matter by means of witnesses.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘谞转讬讛 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖讜拽讬 讘专讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬 住讛讚讬 讚讻诇 砖转讗 讛讜讛 讗转讬转 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬 讘砖讜拽讗讬 讛讜讛 讟专讬讚谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讻诇 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬 讟专讬讚 讘砖讜拽讗

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this house of mine? The possessor 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 in the outer marketplaces, and was unaware that you were residing in my house, and therefore did not lodge a protest, so your profiting does not establish the presumption of ownership. The possessor said to him: But I have witnesses that every year you would come here for thirty days and had an opportunity to know that I was residing in your house and to lodge a protest. The claimant said to him: I was occupied with my business in the marketplaces for those thirty days. Rava said: A person is apt to be occupied with business in the marketplace for all of thirty days, and accepted his claim.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻诇谞讬讗 讝讘讬谞转讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬 讚讝讘谞讛 诪讬谞讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 诇讗讜 拽讗 诪讜讚讬转

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so, who told me that he purchased it from you. The claimant said to him: Don鈥檛 you concede

讚讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讚讬讚讬 讛讬讗 讜讗转 诇讗 讝讘讬谞转讛 诪讬谞讗讬 讝讬诇 诇讗讜 讘注诇 讚讘专讬诐 讚讬讚讬 讗转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬谞讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

that this land is formerly mine, and that you did not purchase it from me? Go away; I am not legally answerable to you. Rava said: The claimant stated the halakha to the possessor, as this is a legitimate claim, and Rava accepted his claim.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻诇谞讬讗 讝讘讬谞讗 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇谞讬讗 讙讝诇谞讗 讛讜讗

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so and then I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: So-and-so is a robber who robbed me of the field, and he did not have the authority to sell it to you.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗转讗讬 讗讬诪诇讻讬 讘讱 讜讗诪专转 诇讬 讝讬诇 讝讘讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖谞讬 谞讜讞 诇讬 讛专讗砖讜谉 拽砖讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬谞讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛

The possessor said to him: But I have witnesses that I came and consulted with you, and you said to me: Go purchase the land, indicating that you conceded that he had the authority to sell it. The claimant said to him: The reason that I advised you to purchase it was because the second person, i.e., you, the possessor, is amenable to me, while the first, i.e., the purported thief, is more difficult than he, i.e., I prefer to litigate with you rather than with him. Rava said: The claimant stated the halakha to the possessor, as this is a legitimate claim, and Rava accepted his claim.

讻诪讗谉 讻讗讚诪讜谉 讚转谞谉 讛注讜专专 注诇 讛砖讚讛 讜讞转讜诐 注诇讬讛 讘注讚 讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛砖谞讬 谞讜讞 诇讬 讛专讗砖讜谉 拽砖讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is Rava鈥檚 statement? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Admon? As we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 109a): With regard to one who contests ownership of a field, claiming that a field possessed by someone else actually belongs to him, and the claimant himself is signed as a witness on the bill of sale of the field to that other person, Admon says: His signature does not disprove his claim of ownership of the property, as it is possible that the claimant said to himself: The second person is amenable to me to deal with, as I can reason with him, while the first owner, who sold the field to the current possessor, is more difficult to deal with than he. And the Rabbis say: He lost his right to contest, as he signed a bill of sale that states that the field belongs to the possessor. Rava鈥檚 ruling appears to be in accordance with the individual opinion of Admon, and not with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 注讘讚 诇讬讛 诪注砖讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讘讜专讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚诪讬拽专讬 讜讗诪专

The Gemara explains: You may even say that Rava鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. There, in the case of the mishna in tractate Ketubot, by signing the bill of sale the claimant performed an action indicating that the field was not his for the benefit of the possessor of the field, but here, in Rava鈥檚 case, there was no action, only speech, and a person is apt to casually say statements, and he does not lose his right by virtue of this.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻诇谞讬讗 讝讘讬谞转讛 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇谞讬讗 讙讝诇谞讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬 住讛讚讬 讚讗转讬转 讘讗讜专转讗 讜讗诪专转 诇讬 讝讘谞讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讝讘讜谉 讚讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讝讘讬谉 讚讬谞讬讛

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so and then I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: So-and-so is a robber who robbed me of the field, and he did not have the authority to sell it to you. The possessor said to him: But I have witnesses that you came to me at night and you said to me: Sell it to me, indicating that it is not your land, as if it were yours, you would have demanded that I return it without your paying for it. The claimant said to him: I said to myself: Let me purchase the benefit of avoiding my litigation in order to reclaim my land. Rava said: A person is apt to pay money to purchase the benefit of avoiding his litigation.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻诇谞讬讗 讝讘讬谞讗 讜讗讻诇转讬讛 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 谞拽讬讟谞讗 砖讟专讗 讚讝讘谞讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讗 讗专讘注讬 砖谞讬

There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from so-and-so and then I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, indicating that he possessed it for three years, as this is the minimum number of years required for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: But I am holding a document stating that I purchased it from that seller four years ago. Therefore, if it was sold to you three years ago, as you claim, he did not have the authority to sell it at that time.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 转诇转 砖谞讬 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讟讜讘讗 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚拽专讜 诇砖谞讬 讟讜讘讗 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛

The possessor said to him: Do you maintain that when I said: I profited from the land for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, that I was saying I worked and profited from the land for precisely three years? What I actually was saying was that I worked and profited from the land for many years and thereby established the presumption of ownership. Since my purchase predated yours, it was effective. Rava said: It is common for people to refer to many years as: Years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership, and his claim is accepted.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讻诇讛 砖讘注 讚拽讚讬诐 讞讝拽讛 讚讛讗讬 诇砖讟专讗 讚讛讱

The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only if he profited from the land for seven years, so that presumptive ownership of this possessor preceded the document of that claimant.

Scroll To Top