Two people claimed they had each inherited a particular piece of land from their fathers. Rav Nachman ruled that the stronger one prevails. How is this case different from two people claiming ownership of an item by having a document of sale or gift issued on the same date where Rav and Shmuel disagree – one holds it is divided and the other that it is given to the judges’ discretion? How is it different from a case where a cow is traded for a donkey or a maidservant is sold and the cow/maidservant has offspring and it is unclear if the birth happened before or after the sale and the ruling is that the offspring is split between the two parties? In a case where the verdict is that the strongest one prevails, what happens if a third party comes and seizes the item? In what situations is presumptive status established immediately? Gentiles can only establish ownership with a document, not with a chazaka. Rav ruled that a Jew who claims that he/she bought property from a gentile, must prove it with a document.
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Bava Batra 35
דְּרַב אָמַר: יַחְלוֹקוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי? הָתָם, לֵיכָּא לְמֵיקַם עֲלַהּ דְּמִילְּתָא; הָכָא, אִיכָּא לְמֵיקַם עֲלַהּ דְּמִילְּתָא.
as Rav said: In that case, they should divide the property between them, and Shmuel said: It is decided based on the discretion [shudda] of the judges. Why in the seemingly equivalent case of a dispute where there is no evidence for either litigant did Rav Naḥman rule that whoever is stronger prevails? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the two deeds, it will not be possible for the court to clarify the matter in the future, and therefore, the court issues a ruling according to the information they currently have. Here, in the case of Rav Naḥman, it may be possible for the court to clarify the matter in the future, if one of the litigants was to bring witnesses supporting his claim.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: הַמַּחֲלִיף פָּרָה בַּחֲמוֹר, וְיָלְדָה; וְכֵן הַמּוֹכֵר שִׁפְחָתוֹ, וְיָלְדָה – זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָכַרְתִּי יָלְדָה״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״מִשֶּׁלָּקַחְתִּי יָלְדָה״ – יַחְלוֹקוּ?
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 100a): With regard to one who exchanges a cow for a donkey and the cow calved, and similarly one who sells his Canaanite maidservant and she gave birth, and this one, i.e., the seller, says: She gave birth before I sold either the cow or maidservant, and the offspring belongs to me; and that one, i.e., the buyer, says: She gave birth after I purchased her and the offspring belongs to me, the ruling is that they should divide the value of the newborn. In that case, the court is not able to clarify the matter, so they should rule that whoever is stronger prevails.
הָתָם, לְהַאי
The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the exchange, for this one, i.e., the buyer,
אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא, וּלְהָהוּא אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא; הָכָא, אִי דְּמָר – לָא דְּמָר, וְאִי דְּמָר – לָא דְּמָר.
he has financial involvement [derara], and for that one, i.e., the seller, he has financial involvement. Since each of them has a definite claim to owning the offspring, as each of them owned the cow or maidservant at one point, it is reasonable for the court to divide the offspring between the two parties. By contrast, here, in the case of Rav Naḥman, if it belongs to this Master it does not belong to that Master, and if it belongs to that Master it does not belong to this Master. Only one of the two litigants has any claim to the property, as it belonged either to the ancestors of this one or of that one. Therefore, a ruling to divide it would not be appropriate.
אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: אִם בָּא אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק, וְהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: גַּזְלָן שֶׁל רַבִּים לָאו שְׁמֵיהּ גַּזְלָן.
The Sages of Neharde’a say: In a case where two parties disputed the ownership of a certain property and the court ruled that whoever is stronger prevails, if one from the marketplace who had no claim came and took possession of it, the court does not remove it from his possession, as Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:14): A robber of the public, meaning a robber whose victim is unknown, is not called a robber. Since it is unclear whom he robbed, no one is able to demand payment. Here too, since it is unclear whose property it is, neither can demand that it be taken from the robber.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם שְׁמֵיהּ גַּזְלָן, וּמַאי ״לָא שְׁמֵיהּ גַּזְלָן״? שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן לְהִשָּׁבוֹן.
Rav Ashi said in disagreement: Actually, he is called a robber, and the property is taken from him, and what is meant by: He is not called a robber? It means that the stolen item is not subject to being returned, and consequently he is unable to fully atone, as he does not know whom to repay.
חׇזְקָתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: אִי דָּלֵי לֵיהּ אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ צַנָּא דְפֵירֵי, לְאַלְתַּר הָוֵי חֲזָקָה. אָמַר רַב זְבִיד, וְאִם טָעַן וְאָמַר: ״לְפֵירוֹת הוֹרַדְתִּיו״ – נֶאֱמָן. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ, אֲבָל לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ – לָא.
§ The mishna teaches with regard to certain types of property that their presumptive ownership is established by use of a duration of three years from day to day. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Abba says: Nevertheless, there are cases where presumptive ownership is established immediately. For example, if the prior owner himself lifted a basket of fruit from that field for the possessor, that immediately is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and the prior owner can no longer lodge a protest. Rav Zevid says: But if the prior owner stated a claim and said: I brought him down into my field solely to consume the produce, e.g., as a sharecropper, he is deemed credible. And that halakha, that the prior owner is deemed credible were he to state such a claim, applies only if he stated it within three years of when the other took possession, but after three years he is not deemed credible.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: אִי לְפִירָא אַחֲתֵיהּ, מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי.
Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If in fact he did bring him down into the field solely to consume the produce, what was there for him to do to prevent the possessor from establishing the presumption of ownership? Rav Kahana said to him: He should have protested during the first three years and publicized that he had granted the possessor rights to the produce alone.
דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָנֵי מַשְׁכְּנָתָא דְסוּרָא, דִּכְתִב בְּהוּ: ״בְּמִשְׁלַם שְׁנַיָּא אִלֵּין תִּיפּוֹק אַרְעָא דָּא בְּלָא כְּסַף״; אִי כָּבֵישׁ לֵיהּ לִשְׁטַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא גַּבֵּיהּ, וְאָמַר: לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְהֵימַן? מְתַקְּנִי רַבָּנַן מִידֵּי דְּאָתֵי בֵּיהּ לִידֵי פְּסֵידָא?! אֶלָּא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי.
The assumption that lodging a protest would be effective must be correct, since if you do not say so, then in the case of this mortgage according to the custom in Sura, a city in Babylonia, in which is written: At the completion of these years this land will be released to its prior owner without any need for the prior owner to give money, if the creditor were to hide the mortgage document in his possession and say: This land is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, here is it also the case that he would be deemed credible? That cannot be, as is it reasonable that the Sages would institute a matter, such as this type of arrangement, that people can be led by it to suffer a loss? Rather, in the case of the mortgage the debtor should have protested, and by not protesting, he causes his own loss. Here, too, in the case of the field, the owner should have protested.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת גּוֹי – הֲרֵי הוּא כְּגוֹי; מָה גּוֹי – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר, אַף יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת גּוֹי – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר. אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִי אָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל:
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to a Jew who comes to claim land due to having received it from a gentile, he is like a gentile in terms of which legal claims are available to him. Therefore, just as a gentile has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership only by means of a document, so too, a Jew who comes to claim land due to having received it from a gentile has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership only by means of a document. Rava said: And if the Jew said to a prior owner, who claims to still own the land:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Berlin, Germany
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
Ontario, Canada
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Ontario, Canada
Oceanside NY, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Bava Batra 35
דְּרַב אָמַר: יַחְלוֹקוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי? הָתָם, לֵיכָּא לְמֵיקַם עֲלַהּ דְּמִילְּתָא; הָכָא, אִיכָּא לְמֵיקַם עֲלַהּ דְּמִילְּתָא.
as Rav said: In that case, they should divide the property between them, and Shmuel said: It is decided based on the discretion [shudda] of the judges. Why in the seemingly equivalent case of a dispute where there is no evidence for either litigant did Rav Naḥman rule that whoever is stronger prevails? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the two deeds, it will not be possible for the court to clarify the matter in the future, and therefore, the court issues a ruling according to the information they currently have. Here, in the case of Rav Naḥman, it may be possible for the court to clarify the matter in the future, if one of the litigants was to bring witnesses supporting his claim.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: הַמַּחֲלִיף פָּרָה בַּחֲמוֹר, וְיָלְדָה; וְכֵן הַמּוֹכֵר שִׁפְחָתוֹ, וְיָלְדָה – זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָכַרְתִּי יָלְדָה״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״מִשֶּׁלָּקַחְתִּי יָלְדָה״ – יַחְלוֹקוּ?
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 100a): With regard to one who exchanges a cow for a donkey and the cow calved, and similarly one who sells his Canaanite maidservant and she gave birth, and this one, i.e., the seller, says: She gave birth before I sold either the cow or maidservant, and the offspring belongs to me; and that one, i.e., the buyer, says: She gave birth after I purchased her and the offspring belongs to me, the ruling is that they should divide the value of the newborn. In that case, the court is not able to clarify the matter, so they should rule that whoever is stronger prevails.
הָתָם, לְהַאי
The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the exchange, for this one, i.e., the buyer,
אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא, וּלְהָהוּא אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא; הָכָא, אִי דְּמָר – לָא דְּמָר, וְאִי דְּמָר – לָא דְּמָר.
he has financial involvement [derara], and for that one, i.e., the seller, he has financial involvement. Since each of them has a definite claim to owning the offspring, as each of them owned the cow or maidservant at one point, it is reasonable for the court to divide the offspring between the two parties. By contrast, here, in the case of Rav Naḥman, if it belongs to this Master it does not belong to that Master, and if it belongs to that Master it does not belong to this Master. Only one of the two litigants has any claim to the property, as it belonged either to the ancestors of this one or of that one. Therefore, a ruling to divide it would not be appropriate.
אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: אִם בָּא אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק, וְהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: גַּזְלָן שֶׁל רַבִּים לָאו שְׁמֵיהּ גַּזְלָן.
The Sages of Neharde’a say: In a case where two parties disputed the ownership of a certain property and the court ruled that whoever is stronger prevails, if one from the marketplace who had no claim came and took possession of it, the court does not remove it from his possession, as Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:14): A robber of the public, meaning a robber whose victim is unknown, is not called a robber. Since it is unclear whom he robbed, no one is able to demand payment. Here too, since it is unclear whose property it is, neither can demand that it be taken from the robber.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם שְׁמֵיהּ גַּזְלָן, וּמַאי ״לָא שְׁמֵיהּ גַּזְלָן״? שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן לְהִשָּׁבוֹן.
Rav Ashi said in disagreement: Actually, he is called a robber, and the property is taken from him, and what is meant by: He is not called a robber? It means that the stolen item is not subject to being returned, and consequently he is unable to fully atone, as he does not know whom to repay.
חׇזְקָתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: אִי דָּלֵי לֵיהּ אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ צַנָּא דְפֵירֵי, לְאַלְתַּר הָוֵי חֲזָקָה. אָמַר רַב זְבִיד, וְאִם טָעַן וְאָמַר: ״לְפֵירוֹת הוֹרַדְתִּיו״ – נֶאֱמָן. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ, אֲבָל לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ – לָא.
§ The mishna teaches with regard to certain types of property that their presumptive ownership is established by use of a duration of three years from day to day. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Abba says: Nevertheless, there are cases where presumptive ownership is established immediately. For example, if the prior owner himself lifted a basket of fruit from that field for the possessor, that immediately is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and the prior owner can no longer lodge a protest. Rav Zevid says: But if the prior owner stated a claim and said: I brought him down into my field solely to consume the produce, e.g., as a sharecropper, he is deemed credible. And that halakha, that the prior owner is deemed credible were he to state such a claim, applies only if he stated it within three years of when the other took possession, but after three years he is not deemed credible.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: אִי לְפִירָא אַחֲתֵיהּ, מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי.
Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If in fact he did bring him down into the field solely to consume the produce, what was there for him to do to prevent the possessor from establishing the presumption of ownership? Rav Kahana said to him: He should have protested during the first three years and publicized that he had granted the possessor rights to the produce alone.
דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָנֵי מַשְׁכְּנָתָא דְסוּרָא, דִּכְתִב בְּהוּ: ״בְּמִשְׁלַם שְׁנַיָּא אִלֵּין תִּיפּוֹק אַרְעָא דָּא בְּלָא כְּסַף״; אִי כָּבֵישׁ לֵיהּ לִשְׁטַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא גַּבֵּיהּ, וְאָמַר: לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְהֵימַן? מְתַקְּנִי רַבָּנַן מִידֵּי דְּאָתֵי בֵּיהּ לִידֵי פְּסֵידָא?! אֶלָּא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי.
The assumption that lodging a protest would be effective must be correct, since if you do not say so, then in the case of this mortgage according to the custom in Sura, a city in Babylonia, in which is written: At the completion of these years this land will be released to its prior owner without any need for the prior owner to give money, if the creditor were to hide the mortgage document in his possession and say: This land is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, here is it also the case that he would be deemed credible? That cannot be, as is it reasonable that the Sages would institute a matter, such as this type of arrangement, that people can be led by it to suffer a loss? Rather, in the case of the mortgage the debtor should have protested, and by not protesting, he causes his own loss. Here, too, in the case of the field, the owner should have protested.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת גּוֹי – הֲרֵי הוּא כְּגוֹי; מָה גּוֹי – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר, אַף יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת גּוֹי – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר. אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִי אָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל:
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to a Jew who comes to claim land due to having received it from a gentile, he is like a gentile in terms of which legal claims are available to him. Therefore, just as a gentile has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership only by means of a document, so too, a Jew who comes to claim land due to having received it from a gentile has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership only by means of a document. Rava said: And if the Jew said to a prior owner, who claims to still own the land:
