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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 21, 2017 | ื›ืดื” ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Bava Batra 30

Various cases are brought regarding debates over property.


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

ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื›ืœ ื ื›ืกื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ืžื–ื‘ื™ื ื ืœืš ื”ื•ืื™ ื”ื”ื™ื ืืจืขื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžื™ืงืจื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืœืื• ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื•ืื™ืงืจื•ื™ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ืงืจื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื•ืงืžื ื‘ื™ื“ื ื“ืœื•ืงื— ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื“ื™ื ื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืจืื™ื”

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 Naแธฅman for judgment, and he established the land in the possession of the buyer. Rava said to Rav Naแธฅman: Is this the halakha? Isnโ€™t the halakha that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and the land should remain in the possession of the seller?

ืงืฉื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืื“ืจื‘ื ืงืฉื™ื ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ

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 Naแธฅman to another statement of Rav Naแธฅman, as in the first case, where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ื“ืจื‘ื ืื“ืจื‘ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ืชื ืžื•ื›ืจ ืงืื™ ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ื” ื”ื›ื ืœื•ืงื— ืงืื™ ื‘ื ื™ื›ืกื™ื”

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.

ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ื•ืžื™ืงืจื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืจืžื™ื ืœื’ืœื•ื™ื™ ื“ืœืื• ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ืœื ื™ื”ื ืืœื ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ ืฉื˜ืจื ืžื™ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืงื™ื™ื ืฉื˜ืจืš ื•ืงื•ื ื‘ื ื™ื›ืกื™

The contradiction between one statement of Rav Naแธฅman and the other statement of Rav Naแธฅman 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. Wouldnโ€™t 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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ืš ื–ื‘ื ืชื™ื” ื•ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉื•ืงื™ ื‘ืจืื™ ื”ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืื™ืช ืœื™ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื“ื›ืœ ืฉืชื ื”ื•ื” ืืชื™ืช ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ ื‘ืฉื•ืงืื™ ื”ื•ื” ื˜ืจื™ื“ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื“ื›ืœ ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ ื˜ืจื™ื“ ื‘ืฉื•ืงื

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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืคืœื ื™ื ื–ื‘ื™ื ืชื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ ื“ื–ื‘ื ื” ืžื™ื ืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืช ืœืื• ืงื ืžื•ื“ื™ืช

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: Donโ€™t you concede

ื“ื”ืื™ ืืจืขื ื“ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ื•ืืช ืœื ื–ื‘ื™ื ืชื” ืžื™ื ืื™ ื–ื™ืœ ืœืื• ื‘ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื“ื™ื ื ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื”

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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืคืœื ื™ื ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ื•ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœื ื ื”ื•ื

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืื™ืช ืœื™ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื“ืืชืื™ ืื™ืžืœื›ื™ ื‘ืš ื•ืืžืจืช ืœื™ ื–ื™ืœ ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืฉื ื™ ื ื•ื— ืœื™ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืงืฉื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื“ื™ื ื ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื”

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.

ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืื“ืžื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืจืจ ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื•ื—ืชื•ื ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ืขื“ ืื“ืžื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื ื•ื— ืœื™ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืงืฉื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื‘ื“ ืืช ื–ื›ื•ืชื•

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is Ravaโ€™s 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. Ravaโ€™s ruling appears to be in accordance with the individual opinion of Admon, and not with the opinion of the Rabbis.

ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืขื‘ื“ ืœื™ื” ืžืขืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ื‘ื•ืจื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื“ืžื™ืงืจื™ ื•ืืžืจ

The Gemara explains: You may even say that Ravaโ€™s 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 Ravaโ€™s 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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืคืœื ื™ื ื–ื‘ื™ื ืชื” ื•ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœื ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืื™ืช ืœื™ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื“ืืชื™ืช ื‘ืื•ืจืชื ื•ืืžืจืช ืœื™ ื–ื‘ื ื” ื ื™ื”ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ื–ื‘ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื“ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ื”

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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืคืœื ื™ื ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ื•ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ื ืงื™ื˜ื ื ืฉื˜ืจื ื“ื–ื‘ื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื ืืจื‘ืขื™ ืฉื ื™

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืชืœืช ืฉื ื™ ืงื ืืžื™ื ื ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื ืงื ืืžื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื“ืงืจื• ืœืฉื ื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ื ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื”

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.

ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืื›ืœื” ืฉื‘ืข ื“ืงื“ื™ื ื—ื–ืงื” ื“ื”ืื™ ืœืฉื˜ืจื ื“ื”ืš

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 monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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

ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื›ืœ ื ื›ืกื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ืžื–ื‘ื™ื ื ืœืš ื”ื•ืื™ ื”ื”ื™ื ืืจืขื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžื™ืงืจื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืœืื• ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื•ืื™ืงืจื•ื™ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ืงืจื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื•ืงืžื ื‘ื™ื“ื ื“ืœื•ืงื— ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื“ื™ื ื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืจืื™ื”

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 Naแธฅman for judgment, and he established the land in the possession of the buyer. Rava said to Rav Naแธฅman: Is this the halakha? Isnโ€™t the halakha that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and the land should remain in the possession of the seller?

ืงืฉื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืื“ืจื‘ื ืงืฉื™ื ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ

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 Naแธฅman to another statement of Rav Naแธฅman, as in the first case, where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ื“ืจื‘ื ืื“ืจื‘ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ืชื ืžื•ื›ืจ ืงืื™ ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ื” ื”ื›ื ืœื•ืงื— ืงืื™ ื‘ื ื™ื›ืกื™ื”

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.

ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ื•ืžื™ืงืจื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืจืžื™ื ืœื’ืœื•ื™ื™ ื“ืœืื• ื“ื‘ื™ ื‘ืจ ืกื™ืกื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ืœื ื™ื”ื ืืœื ื“ื ืงื™ื˜ ืฉื˜ืจื ืžื™ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืงื™ื™ื ืฉื˜ืจืš ื•ืงื•ื ื‘ื ื™ื›ืกื™

The contradiction between one statement of Rav Naแธฅman and the other statement of Rav Naแธฅman 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. Wouldnโ€™t 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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ืชื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ืš ื–ื‘ื ืชื™ื” ื•ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืฉื•ืงื™ ื‘ืจืื™ ื”ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืื™ืช ืœื™ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื“ื›ืœ ืฉืชื ื”ื•ื” ืืชื™ืช ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ ื‘ืฉื•ืงืื™ ื”ื•ื” ื˜ืจื™ื“ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื“ื›ืœ ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ ื˜ืจื™ื“ ื‘ืฉื•ืงื

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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืคืœื ื™ื ื–ื‘ื™ื ืชื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ ื“ื–ื‘ื ื” ืžื™ื ืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืช ืœืื• ืงื ืžื•ื“ื™ืช

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: Donโ€™t you concede

ื“ื”ืื™ ืืจืขื ื“ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื™ื ื•ืืช ืœื ื–ื‘ื™ื ืชื” ืžื™ื ืื™ ื–ื™ืœ ืœืื• ื‘ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื“ื™ื ื ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื”

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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืคืœื ื™ื ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ื•ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœื ื ื”ื•ื

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืื™ืช ืœื™ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื“ืืชืื™ ืื™ืžืœื›ื™ ื‘ืš ื•ืืžืจืช ืœื™ ื–ื™ืœ ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืฉื ื™ ื ื•ื— ืœื™ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืงืฉื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื“ื™ื ื ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื”

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.

ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืื“ืžื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืจืจ ืขืœ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื•ื—ืชื•ื ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ืขื“ ืื“ืžื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื ื•ื— ืœื™ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืงืฉื” ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื‘ื“ ืืช ื–ื›ื•ืชื•

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is Ravaโ€™s 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. Ravaโ€™s ruling appears to be in accordance with the individual opinion of Admon, and not with the opinion of the Rabbis.

ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืขื‘ื“ ืœื™ื” ืžืขืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ื‘ื•ืจื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื“ืžื™ืงืจื™ ื•ืืžืจ

The Gemara explains: You may even say that Ravaโ€™s 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 Ravaโ€™s 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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืคืœื ื™ื ื–ื‘ื™ื ืชื” ื•ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื ื™ื ื’ื–ืœื ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ืื™ืช ืœื™ ืกื”ื“ื™ ื“ืืชื™ืช ื‘ืื•ืจืชื ื•ืืžืจืช ืœื™ ื–ื‘ื ื” ื ื™ื”ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ื–ื‘ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื“ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ื”

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.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืคืœื ื™ื ื–ื‘ื™ื ื ื•ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ื ืงื™ื˜ื ื ืฉื˜ืจื ื“ื–ื‘ื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื ืืจื‘ืขื™ ืฉื ื™

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ืชืœืช ืฉื ื™ ืงื ืืžื™ื ื ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื ืงื ืืžื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื“ืงืจื• ืœืฉื ื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ื ืฉื ื™ ื—ื–ืงื”

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.

ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืื›ืœื” ืฉื‘ืข ื“ืงื“ื™ื ื—ื–ืงื” ื“ื”ืื™ ืœืฉื˜ืจื ื“ื”ืš

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