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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 26, 2017 | 诇壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 34b

Two people claimed ownership over a boat, the law of “may the stronger one prevail” kicks in. 聽If one of them asks the court to seize the property to prevent that law from kicking in to buy time in which he/she聽can find evidence to support his/her claim, can they? 聽And if the court does seize it, can they release it in the event that no further proof is found. 聽If two claim ownership to land but neither can prove it, Rav Nachman says: “the stronger one prevails.” 聽There are many interpretations explaining the logic behind this law (which seems more like anarchy than a law). 聽The gemara then compares it to various other cases of doubtful situations where either the law is that it gets split 50/50 or the judges can decide which side gets the item in question. 聽The gemara now reverts back to the first mishna regarding how long it takes for one to have a chazaka on the land. 聽It brings an example where one can have a chazaka immediately. 聽Rav Zevid limits this case and his explanation is questioned by Rav Ashi. 聽In the end it seems clear that if one had a sharecropper or sold one rights to the fruits of the property, one must make sure that before three years pass, one must state a protest or explain that the person has rights only to the fruits. 聽Otherwise, the other can claim ownership. 聽The same is true for land used for collateral where the fruits the lender eats are used to pay back the loan (mashkanta d’sura)


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

讛讬讻讬 谞讬讚讬讬谞讜讛 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讬砖诇诐 诇讬讻讗 转专讬 住讛讚讬 诇讬驻讟专讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讞讚 住讛讚讗 诇讬砖转讘注 讛讗 讗诪专 诪讬讞讟祝 讞讟驻讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讞讟驻讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻讙讝诇谉

How should judges judge for this judgment? There are reasons not to implement all potential rulings. If they were to order the one who snatched the metal to pay for it, that would not be the correct ruling, because there are not two witnesses who saw him snatch it, and the court does not force payment based on the testimony of one witness. If they were to accept his claim and exempt him entirely, that would not be the correct ruling, because there is one witness who testified against him. If they were to order him to take an oath, which is the usual response to counter the testimony of one witness, didn鈥檛 he say that he did in fact snatch it, and since he said that he snatched it and there is no proof that it is his, he is like a robber, and the court does not allow a robber to take an oath.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讜讬 诪讞讜讬讘 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讬砖讘注 讜讻诇 讛诪讞讜讬讘 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讬砖讘注 诪砖诇诐

Rabbi Abba said to them: He is one who is liable to take an oath who is unable to take an oath, and anyone who is liable to take an oath who is unable to take an oath is liable to pay. The Rabbis who were studying before Abaye thought that the case of the witness to the years of profiting and Rabbi Abba鈥檚 case are similar, in that since the possessor is unable to take an oath to refute the witness, as he concedes that he profited from the land for those years, he should have to pay for his consumption of the produce.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 住讛讚讗 诇讗讜专讜注讬 拽讗转讬 讻讬 讗转讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 诇住讬讜注讬 拽讗 讗转讬 讻讬 讗转讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讛 讘讬讚讬讛

Abaye said to these Rabbis: Are these two cases comparable? There, in Rabbi Abba鈥檚 case, the witness is coming to undermine the position of the one who snatched the metal. This can be seen from the fact that when it would be the case that another witness comes to court and testifies with the first witness, we would take away the piece of metal from the one who snatched it. By contrast, here, in the case of the individual who brought one witness to attest to his profiting from the land, the witness is coming to support the possessor. This can be seen from the fact that when another witness would come to court and testify with the first witness, we would establish the land in his possession. Therefore, the testimony of the one witness does not render the one who profited from the land liable to take an oath.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讚诪讬讗 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇讞讚 住讛讚讗 讜诇转专转讬 砖谞讬 讜诇驻讬专讬

Rather, if this case of Rabbi Abba is comparable to a case such as this, it is comparable to a case where there is one witness and he testifies to someone鈥檚 profiting from land for two years, and the comparison is in terms of payment for the produce that he consumed. In terms of the consumption of the produce, two witnesses would have rendered the possessor liable to pay, as consumption of the produce for only two years does not establish the presumption of ownership. Therefore, one witness renders him liable to take an oath. Since he himself claimed that he profited from the land as the witness testified, he cannot take an oath to contest the testimony. Therefore, he would have to pay for the produce.

讛讛讜讗 讗专讘讗 讚讛讜讜 诪讬谞爪讜 注诇讛 讘讬 转专讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讛讬讗 讜讛讗讬 讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讛讬讗 讗转讗 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讗诪专 转讬驻住讜讛 讗讚诪讬讬转讬谞讗 住讛讚讬 讚讚讬讚讬 讛讬讗 转驻住讬谞谉 讗讜 诇讗 转驻住讬谞谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 转驻住讬谞谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讗 转驻住讬谞谉

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain boat that two people were quarreling about with regard to its ownership. This one said: It is mine, and that one also said: It is mine. One of them came to court and said: Seize it until I am able to bring witnesses that it is mine. The Gemara asks: In such a case, do we seize it or do we not seize it? Rav Huna said: We seize it. Rav Yehuda said: We do not seize it, as there is no cause for the court to intervene.

讗讝诇 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞 住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗驻拽讜讛 讜讻诇 讚讗诇讬诐 讙讘专 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讗讜 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 转驻住讬谞谉 讜讛讬讻讗 讚转驻住 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉

The court seized the boat. The one who requested of the court to seize it went to seek witnesses, but did not find witnesses. He then said to the court: Release the boat, and whoever is stronger prevails, as this is the ruling in a case where there is neither evidence nor presumptive ownership for either litigant. The Gemara asks: In such a case, do we release it or do we not release it? Rav Yehuda said: We do not release it. Rav Pappa said: We release it. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we do not seize property in a case where ownership is uncertain, and where it was seized, we do not release it.

讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讗讘讜转讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讗讘讜转讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诇 讚讗诇讬诐 讙讘专 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚

There was an incident where two people dispute the ownership of property. This one says: It belonged to my ancestors and I inherited it from them, and that one says: It belonged to my ancestors and I inherited it from them. There was neither evidence nor presumptive ownership for either litigant. Rav Na岣an said: Whoever is stronger prevails. The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the case where two people produce two deeds of sale or gift for the same field that are issued on one day,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 34b

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 34b

讛讬讻讬 谞讬讚讬讬谞讜讛 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讛讗讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讬砖诇诐 诇讬讻讗 转专讬 住讛讚讬 诇讬驻讟专讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讞讚 住讛讚讗 诇讬砖转讘注 讛讗 讗诪专 诪讬讞讟祝 讞讟驻讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讞讟驻讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻讙讝诇谉

How should judges judge for this judgment? There are reasons not to implement all potential rulings. If they were to order the one who snatched the metal to pay for it, that would not be the correct ruling, because there are not two witnesses who saw him snatch it, and the court does not force payment based on the testimony of one witness. If they were to accept his claim and exempt him entirely, that would not be the correct ruling, because there is one witness who testified against him. If they were to order him to take an oath, which is the usual response to counter the testimony of one witness, didn鈥檛 he say that he did in fact snatch it, and since he said that he snatched it and there is no proof that it is his, he is like a robber, and the court does not allow a robber to take an oath.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讜讬 诪讞讜讬讘 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讬砖讘注 讜讻诇 讛诪讞讜讬讘 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讬砖讘注 诪砖诇诐

Rabbi Abba said to them: He is one who is liable to take an oath who is unable to take an oath, and anyone who is liable to take an oath who is unable to take an oath is liable to pay. The Rabbis who were studying before Abaye thought that the case of the witness to the years of profiting and Rabbi Abba鈥檚 case are similar, in that since the possessor is unable to take an oath to refute the witness, as he concedes that he profited from the land for those years, he should have to pay for his consumption of the produce.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 住讛讚讗 诇讗讜专讜注讬 拽讗转讬 讻讬 讗转讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘讛讚讬讛 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 诇住讬讜注讬 拽讗 讗转讬 讻讬 讗转讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讛 讘讬讚讬讛

Abaye said to these Rabbis: Are these two cases comparable? There, in Rabbi Abba鈥檚 case, the witness is coming to undermine the position of the one who snatched the metal. This can be seen from the fact that when it would be the case that another witness comes to court and testifies with the first witness, we would take away the piece of metal from the one who snatched it. By contrast, here, in the case of the individual who brought one witness to attest to his profiting from the land, the witness is coming to support the possessor. This can be seen from the fact that when another witness would come to court and testify with the first witness, we would establish the land in his possession. Therefore, the testimony of the one witness does not render the one who profited from the land liable to take an oath.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讚诪讬讗 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇讞讚 住讛讚讗 讜诇转专转讬 砖谞讬 讜诇驻讬专讬

Rather, if this case of Rabbi Abba is comparable to a case such as this, it is comparable to a case where there is one witness and he testifies to someone鈥檚 profiting from land for two years, and the comparison is in terms of payment for the produce that he consumed. In terms of the consumption of the produce, two witnesses would have rendered the possessor liable to pay, as consumption of the produce for only two years does not establish the presumption of ownership. Therefore, one witness renders him liable to take an oath. Since he himself claimed that he profited from the land as the witness testified, he cannot take an oath to contest the testimony. Therefore, he would have to pay for the produce.

讛讛讜讗 讗专讘讗 讚讛讜讜 诪讬谞爪讜 注诇讛 讘讬 转专讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讛讬讗 讜讛讗讬 讗诪专 讚讬讚讬 讛讬讗 讗转讗 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讗诪专 转讬驻住讜讛 讗讚诪讬讬转讬谞讗 住讛讚讬 讚讚讬讚讬 讛讬讗 转驻住讬谞谉 讗讜 诇讗 转驻住讬谞谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 转驻住讬谞谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讗 转驻住讬谞谉

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain boat that two people were quarreling about with regard to its ownership. This one said: It is mine, and that one also said: It is mine. One of them came to court and said: Seize it until I am able to bring witnesses that it is mine. The Gemara asks: In such a case, do we seize it or do we not seize it? Rav Huna said: We seize it. Rav Yehuda said: We do not seize it, as there is no cause for the court to intervene.

讗讝诇 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞 住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗驻拽讜讛 讜讻诇 讚讗诇讬诐 讙讘专 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讗讜 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪驻拽讬谞谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 转驻住讬谞谉 讜讛讬讻讗 讚转驻住 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉

The court seized the boat. The one who requested of the court to seize it went to seek witnesses, but did not find witnesses. He then said to the court: Release the boat, and whoever is stronger prevails, as this is the ruling in a case where there is neither evidence nor presumptive ownership for either litigant. The Gemara asks: In such a case, do we release it or do we not release it? Rav Yehuda said: We do not release it. Rav Pappa said: We release it. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we do not seize property in a case where ownership is uncertain, and where it was seized, we do not release it.

讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讗讘讜转讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讗讘讜转讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诇 讚讗诇讬诐 讙讘专 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚

There was an incident where two people dispute the ownership of property. This one says: It belonged to my ancestors and I inherited it from them, and that one says: It belonged to my ancestors and I inherited it from them. There was neither evidence nor presumptive ownership for either litigant. Rav Na岣an said: Whoever is stronger prevails. The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the case where two people produce two deeds of sale or gift for the same field that are issued on one day,

Scroll To Top