Today's Daf Yomi
February 27, 2017 | 讗壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讝
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.
Bava Batra 36
One who buys from a non Jew who bought originally from a Jew needs to prove that the non Jew bought it from the Jew – either by providing the document or by claiming he/she saw the original sale (in the event that he/she had also lived on the land for 3 years). 聽But proof that the non Jew lived there for three years without the owner protesting doesn’t help as there is an assumption that one may not protest against a non Jew out of fear. 聽A number of other assumptions about human behavior are made on this daf. 聽One generally doesn’t bring tools and harvest in a field that is not one’s own. 聽One wouldn’t protest land that is unlikely to grow crops or unprotected land whose produce will likely be eaten by the animals, or produce that is forbidden to sell by law (orla, shmita, kelaim). 聽There is a big debate regarding whether or not plowing would be considered an act of chazaka.聽if the owner did not protest.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
诇讚讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讙讜讬 讚诪讬谞讱 讝讘谞讛 诪讛讬诪谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬诇讜 讙讜讬 讗诪专 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙讜讬 诪讛讬诪谉
The gentile told me that he purchased a field from you, this claim is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: Is there any case where if a gentile says it he is not deemed credible, but if a Jew said it in the gentile鈥檚 name he would be deemed credible?
讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇 拽诪讬 讚讬讚讬 讝讘谞讛 讙讜讬 诪讬谞讱 讜讝讘谞讛 谞讬讛诇讬 诪讛讬诪谉 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讝讘讬谞转讛 诪讬谞讱
Rather, Rava said: If a Jew said to the prior owner: A gentile purchased a field from you in my presence, and then he sold it to me, this claim is deemed credible, since if he wanted to, he could have said to the prior owner of the land: I purchased it from you.
讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚谞拽讬讟 诪讙诇讗 讜转讜讘诇讬讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讗讬讙讝专讛 诇讚拽诇讗 讚驻诇谞讬讗 讚讝讘谞转讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讛讬诪谉 诇讗 讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞讬砖 诇诪讬讙讝专 讚拽诇讗 讚诇讗讜 讚讬诇讬讛
The Gemara records a series of halakhot pertaining to presumptive ownership. And Rav Yehuda says: This one who is holding a sickle and rope and says: I will go cull the dates from the date tree of so-and-so, from whom I purchased it, is deemed credible. The reason for this is that a person is not so brazen that he would cull the dates from a date tree that is not his.
讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讞讝讬拽 诪讙讜讚讗 讚注专讜讚讬 讜诇讘专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讻诇 讚讝专注 谞诪讬 注专讜讚讬 讗讻诇讬 诇讬讛
And Rav Yehuda says: With regard to this one, who possesses a field only from the fence built to prevent the entry of the wild donkeys and outward toward the public property, this conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. What is the reason? The owner says to himself: Everything that he sows, the wild donkeys will eat as well, and cannot establish the presumption of ownership for him, as he is not profiting from the land as an owner would.
讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讻诇讛 注专诇讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讻诇讛 注专诇讛 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻诇讗讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛
And Rav Yehuda says: With regard to one who profited from the land by consuming produce from the first three years after it was planted [orla], during which time one is prohibited from deriving benefit from the produce, this conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who profited from the land by consuming orla produce, or profited from the land by consuming produce of the Sabbatical Year, or consumed produce that was prohibited as it was of diverse kinds, this conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.
讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讻诇讛 砖讞转 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬 讘爪讜讗专 诪讞讜讝讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛
Rav Yosef says: With regard to one who profited from the land by consuming fodder, i.e., produce that has grown stalks but is not yet ripe, this conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Rava said: But if the land was located in the neck of Me岣za, a valley where it was common to harvest unripe produce to feed animals, this conduct is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.
讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转驻转讬讞讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讗驻讬拽 讻讜专讗 讜注讬讬诇 讻讜专讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛
Rav Na岣an says: Consumption of produce of land that is fissured is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. This is due to the fact that produce does not grow well there, and therefore, owners do not bother to protest if a trespasser uses the land. Therefore, their silence should not be understood as an admission that it belongs to the possessor. Similarly, consumption of produce of land where one expends a kor of seed to sow and retrieves a kor of produce when harvesting it, is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Here, too, the owners do not bother to protest, as the land is of inferior quality.
讜讛谞讬 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 诇讗 诪讞讝拽讬 讘谉 讜诇讗 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉 讘讛讜:
Rav Na岣an continues: And these members of the household of the Exilarch do not establish the presumption of ownership in our land, as people are afraid to lodge a protest against them, and we do not establish the presumption of ownership in their land, as, due to their wealth, they might not lodge a protest against one who trespasses on their land.
讜讛注讘讚讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 注讘讚讬诐 讬砖 诇讛诐 讞讝拽讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讙讜讚专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 诇讗诇转专 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐
搂 The mishna teaches: And of slaves, presumption of ownership of them is established by using them for a duration of three years from day to day. The Gemara asks: With regard to slaves, is there presumptive ownership of them? But doesn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say: With regard to livestock [hagoderot], possession of them does not establish the presumption of ownership, since they wander from place to place. Therefore, one cannot claim that his mere possession of livestock demonstrates ownership as one can with regard to other movable items, because it may have wandered into his property on its own. The same halakha should apply with regard to a slave. Rava said: It is true that possession of them does not establish the presumption of ownership immediately, but there is presumptive ownership of them after three years.
讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 拽讟谉 诪讜讟诇 讘注专讬住讛 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 诇讗诇转专 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗讬诪讬讛 注讬讬诇转讬讛 诇讛转诐 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专讗
Rava said: If the slave in question was a small child placed in a cradle, possession of him does establish the presumption of ownership immediately, as it does with regard to other movable items. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious, since he cannot move on his own? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he has a mother. Lest you say: One should be concerned that perhaps his mother brought him up to there, and his being on another鈥檚 property does not indicate that the latter is his master. Therefore, Rava teaches us that there is no concern about this possibility, since a mother does not forget her son. Therefore, possession of the infant slave does establish the presumption of ownership.
讛谞讛讜 注讬讝讬 讚讗讻诇讜 讞讜砖诇讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讗转讗 诪专讬 讞讜砖诇讗 转驻住讬谞讛讜 讜讛讜讛 拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讟注讜谉 注讚 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇拽讜讞讜转 讛谉 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讙讜讚专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 砖讗谞讬 注讬讝讬 讚诪住讬专讛 诇专讜注讛
The Gemara relates: There were these certain goats that ate peeled barley [岣shela] in Neharde鈥檃. The owner of the peeled barley came and seized the goats, and was claiming a large sum of money for the barley from the owner of the goats. Shmuel鈥檚 father said: He is able to claim up to the value of the goats, since if he wants to, he could say: The goats are purchased and that is why they are in my possession. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say: With regard to livestock, possession of them does not establish the presumption of ownership? The Gemara answers: Goats are different, as they are given to shepherds, and do not wander on their own.
讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 爪驻专讗 讜驻谞讬讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讟讬讬注讬 砖讻讬讞讬 讜诪讬讚讗 诇讬讚讗 诪砖诇诪讬:
The Gemara challenges: But there is morning and evening to consider, when the goats are unsupervised when traveling between the owner and the shepherd, and during those times this halakha of livestock should apply with regard to them. The Gemara explains: The case under discussion took place in Neharde鈥檃, and Arabs [tayya鈥檈i] who steal animals are common in Neharde鈥檃, and goats there are delivered from hand to hand and are never left unsupervised.
专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 诇讬诪讗 谞讬专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 谞讬专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 谞讬专 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛
搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yishmael says: Three months of possession in the first year, three months of possession in the third year, and twelve months of possession in the middle, which are eighteen months, suffices to establish the presumption of ownership. Rabbi Akiva disagrees, and says that one month in the first and third year, in addition to the full middle year, is sufficient. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the difference between them is whether plowing the land is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? As Rabbi Yishmael holds that plowing is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and three months are needed for the crop to grow, and Rabbi Akiva holds that plowing is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and therefore one month is sufficient.
讜转住讘专讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讞讜讚砖
The Gemara asks: And how can you understand their opinions this way? If so, according to Rabbi Akiva, why specifically require a full month?
讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞讬专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讜讛讻讗 驻讬专讗 专讘讗 讜驻讬专讗 讝讜讟讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜
Even if he plowed the land for one day in the first and third years respectively, it should be sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Rather, everyone agrees that plowing is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and here the difference between their opinions is whether in order to establish the presumption of ownership one needs to possess the land long enough to grow major produce, which requires three months to grow, or only minor produce, which requires one month.
转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞讬专 讗讬谞讜 讞讝拽讛 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讞讝拽讛 诪讗谉 讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 谞专讛 砖谞讛 讜讝专注讛 砖转讬诐 谞专讛 砖转讬诐 讜讝专注讛 砖谞讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛
The Sages taught in a baraita: Plowing is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. And there are those who say: This is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Whose opinion is it that the baraita refers to as: There are those who say? Rav 岣sda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi A岣, as it is taught in a baraita: If the possessor plowed the field for a year and sowed it for two years, or if he plowed it for two years and sowed it for a year, it is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Rabbi A岣 says: This is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, which indicates that he holds that plowing establishes the presumption of ownership.
讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖讗诇讬转 讻诇 讙讚讜诇讬 讛讚讜专 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 谞讬专 讛专讬 讝讛 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讘讬讘讬 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讬专 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讻专讬讘讜 诇讬讛 诇讗专注讬讛 讜砖转讬拽 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讬专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讬讘讗 讜砖讬讘讗 讚讻专讘讜 诇注讬讬诇 讘讬讛
Rav Ashi said: I asked all of the great men of the generation about this, and they said to me: With regard to plowing, this is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Rav Beivai said to Rav Na岣an: What is the reason of the one who says that plowing is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? Rav Na岣an answered: A person is not apt to have his land plowed by someone else and remain silent. Rav Beivai asked: And what is the reason of the one who says that plowing is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? Rav Na岣an answered: The owner says to himself: Let each and every clump [shibba] of earth enter the plow. That is to say, the owner is amenable to having someone else plow the land for him, and then he will sow and harvest.
砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 驻讜诐 谞讛专讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讬诇诪讚谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 谞讬专讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讗讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讜讻诇 讙讚讜诇讬 讛讚讜专 讗诪专讬 谞讬专 讛专讬 讝讛 讞讝拽讛
The residents of Pum Nahara sent a question to Rav Na岣an bar Rav 岣sda. Our teacher, instruct us: Is plowing sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, or is it not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? Rav Na岣an bar Rav 岣sda said to them: Rabbi A岣 and all of the great men of the generation say: With regard to plowing, this is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.
讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 专讘讜转讗 诇诪讬讞砖讘 讙讘专讬 讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讘讘讘诇 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专讬 谞讬专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛
Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Is it a novelty to enumerate great men who maintain an opinion without taking into account that of others? But what of Rav and Shmuel in Babylonia, and Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva in Eretz Yisrael, who say: Plowing is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership?
专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 专讘 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讝拽转讛 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讬专 讚诇讗
The Gemara presents the sources for ascribing to these Sages the opinion that plowing does not establish the presumption of ownership. The basis for ascribing it to Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva is the mishna, as the Gemara explained above. What is the basis for ascribing this opinion to Rav? As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This ruling that either a month or three months is sufficient use for the first and third years is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, but the Rabbis, whose opinion is accepted, say: With regard to a field, its presumption of ownership is established by three years, from day to day. The phrase: From day to day, serves to exclude what? Does it not serve to exclude plowing, which does not establish the presumption of ownership?
砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讙讚讜专 砖诇砖 讙讚讬专讜转 讜讬讘爪讜专 砖诇砖 讘爪讬专讜转 讜讬诪住讜拽 砖诇砖 诪住讬拽讜转 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚拽诇 谞注专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖注讜砖讛 砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐 讘砖谞讛:
What is the basis for ascribing this opinion to Shmuel? As Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This ruling that either a month or three months is sufficient use for the first and third years is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, but the Rabbis, whose opinion is accepted, say: He does not establish the presumption of ownership until he harvests three date crops, or harvests three grape crops, or harvests three olive crops. This indicates that Shmuel holds that plowing does not establish the presumption of ownership. What is the difference between the opinions of Rav and Shmuel? Abaye said: The difference between their opinions is whether three harvests of a young [na鈥檃ra] date tree, which produces a crop three times in one year, establishes the presumption of ownership.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讚讛 讛诇讘谉: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞砖诪注 诇专讘谞谉 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讗讬诇谞讜转 诪诪讟注 注砖专讛 诇讘讬转 住讗讛 讗讻诇 注砖专讛 讘砖谞讛 讝讜 讜注砖专讛 讘砖谞讛 讝讜 讜注砖专讛 讘砖谞讛 讝讜 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛
搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yishmael said: In what case is this statement, that eighteen months are required to establish the presumption of ownership of a non-irrigated field, said? With regard to a white field, i.e., a grain field. But with regard to an orchard, harvesting three different crops suffices. Abaye said: From the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael we infer the proper understanding of a detail of the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with him, and hold that three years of harvesting one crop is required to establish the presumption of ownership even with regard to an orchard: If one had thirty trees of one type in a field, and they were planted with a density of ten trees per each area required for sowing one se鈥檃 of seed [beit se鈥檃], and one consumed the produce of ten trees in this first year, and of another ten trees in this second year, and of another ten trees in this third year, this is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
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 36
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
诇讚讬讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讙讜讬 讚诪讬谞讱 讝讘谞讛 诪讛讬诪谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬诇讜 讙讜讬 讗诪专 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙讜讬 诪讛讬诪谉
The gentile told me that he purchased a field from you, this claim is deemed credible. The Gemara asks: Is there any case where if a gentile says it he is not deemed credible, but if a Jew said it in the gentile鈥檚 name he would be deemed credible?
讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 讗诪专 讬砖专讗诇 拽诪讬 讚讬讚讬 讝讘谞讛 讙讜讬 诪讬谞讱 讜讝讘谞讛 谞讬讛诇讬 诪讛讬诪谉 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讝讘讬谞转讛 诪讬谞讱
Rather, Rava said: If a Jew said to the prior owner: A gentile purchased a field from you in my presence, and then he sold it to me, this claim is deemed credible, since if he wanted to, he could have said to the prior owner of the land: I purchased it from you.
讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚谞拽讬讟 诪讙诇讗 讜转讜讘诇讬讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讗讬讙讝专讛 诇讚拽诇讗 讚驻诇谞讬讗 讚讝讘谞转讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讛讬诪谉 诇讗 讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞讬砖 诇诪讬讙讝专 讚拽诇讗 讚诇讗讜 讚讬诇讬讛
The Gemara records a series of halakhot pertaining to presumptive ownership. And Rav Yehuda says: This one who is holding a sickle and rope and says: I will go cull the dates from the date tree of so-and-so, from whom I purchased it, is deemed credible. The reason for this is that a person is not so brazen that he would cull the dates from a date tree that is not his.
讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讞讝讬拽 诪讙讜讚讗 讚注专讜讚讬 讜诇讘专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讻诇 讚讝专注 谞诪讬 注专讜讚讬 讗讻诇讬 诇讬讛
And Rav Yehuda says: With regard to this one, who possesses a field only from the fence built to prevent the entry of the wild donkeys and outward toward the public property, this conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. What is the reason? The owner says to himself: Everything that he sows, the wild donkeys will eat as well, and cannot establish the presumption of ownership for him, as he is not profiting from the land as an owner would.
讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讻诇讛 注专诇讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗讻诇讛 注专诇讛 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻诇讗讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛
And Rav Yehuda says: With regard to one who profited from the land by consuming produce from the first three years after it was planted [orla], during which time one is prohibited from deriving benefit from the produce, this conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who profited from the land by consuming orla produce, or profited from the land by consuming produce of the Sabbatical Year, or consumed produce that was prohibited as it was of diverse kinds, this conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.
讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讻诇讛 砖讞转 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬 讘爪讜讗专 诪讞讜讝讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛
Rav Yosef says: With regard to one who profited from the land by consuming fodder, i.e., produce that has grown stalks but is not yet ripe, this conduct is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Rava said: But if the land was located in the neck of Me岣za, a valley where it was common to harvest unripe produce to feed animals, this conduct is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.
讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转驻转讬讞讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讗驻讬拽 讻讜专讗 讜注讬讬诇 讻讜专讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛
Rav Na岣an says: Consumption of produce of land that is fissured is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. This is due to the fact that produce does not grow well there, and therefore, owners do not bother to protest if a trespasser uses the land. Therefore, their silence should not be understood as an admission that it belongs to the possessor. Similarly, consumption of produce of land where one expends a kor of seed to sow and retrieves a kor of produce when harvesting it, is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Here, too, the owners do not bother to protest, as the land is of inferior quality.
讜讛谞讬 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 诇讗 诪讞讝拽讬 讘谉 讜诇讗 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉 讘讛讜:
Rav Na岣an continues: And these members of the household of the Exilarch do not establish the presumption of ownership in our land, as people are afraid to lodge a protest against them, and we do not establish the presumption of ownership in their land, as, due to their wealth, they might not lodge a protest against one who trespasses on their land.
讜讛注讘讚讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 注讘讚讬诐 讬砖 诇讛诐 讞讝拽讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讙讜讚专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 诇讗诇转专 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐
搂 The mishna teaches: And of slaves, presumption of ownership of them is established by using them for a duration of three years from day to day. The Gemara asks: With regard to slaves, is there presumptive ownership of them? But doesn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say: With regard to livestock [hagoderot], possession of them does not establish the presumption of ownership, since they wander from place to place. Therefore, one cannot claim that his mere possession of livestock demonstrates ownership as one can with regard to other movable items, because it may have wandered into his property on its own. The same halakha should apply with regard to a slave. Rava said: It is true that possession of them does not establish the presumption of ownership immediately, but there is presumptive ownership of them after three years.
讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 拽讟谉 诪讜讟诇 讘注专讬住讛 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 诇讗诇转专 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗讬诪讬讛 注讬讬诇转讬讛 诇讛转诐 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专讗
Rava said: If the slave in question was a small child placed in a cradle, possession of him does establish the presumption of ownership immediately, as it does with regard to other movable items. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious, since he cannot move on his own? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he has a mother. Lest you say: One should be concerned that perhaps his mother brought him up to there, and his being on another鈥檚 property does not indicate that the latter is his master. Therefore, Rava teaches us that there is no concern about this possibility, since a mother does not forget her son. Therefore, possession of the infant slave does establish the presumption of ownership.
讛谞讛讜 注讬讝讬 讚讗讻诇讜 讞讜砖诇讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讗转讗 诪专讬 讞讜砖诇讗 转驻住讬谞讛讜 讜讛讜讛 拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讟注讜谉 注讚 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇拽讜讞讜转 讛谉 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讙讜讚专讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 砖讗谞讬 注讬讝讬 讚诪住讬专讛 诇专讜注讛
The Gemara relates: There were these certain goats that ate peeled barley [岣shela] in Neharde鈥檃. The owner of the peeled barley came and seized the goats, and was claiming a large sum of money for the barley from the owner of the goats. Shmuel鈥檚 father said: He is able to claim up to the value of the goats, since if he wants to, he could say: The goats are purchased and that is why they are in my possession. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say: With regard to livestock, possession of them does not establish the presumption of ownership? The Gemara answers: Goats are different, as they are given to shepherds, and do not wander on their own.
讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 爪驻专讗 讜驻谞讬讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讟讬讬注讬 砖讻讬讞讬 讜诪讬讚讗 诇讬讚讗 诪砖诇诪讬:
The Gemara challenges: But there is morning and evening to consider, when the goats are unsupervised when traveling between the owner and the shepherd, and during those times this halakha of livestock should apply with regard to them. The Gemara explains: The case under discussion took place in Neharde鈥檃, and Arabs [tayya鈥檈i] who steal animals are common in Neharde鈥檃, and goats there are delivered from hand to hand and are never left unsupervised.
专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 诇讬诪讗 谞讬专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 谞讬专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 谞讬专 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛
搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yishmael says: Three months of possession in the first year, three months of possession in the third year, and twelve months of possession in the middle, which are eighteen months, suffices to establish the presumption of ownership. Rabbi Akiva disagrees, and says that one month in the first and third year, in addition to the full middle year, is sufficient. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the difference between them is whether plowing the land is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? As Rabbi Yishmael holds that plowing is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and three months are needed for the crop to grow, and Rabbi Akiva holds that plowing is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and therefore one month is sufficient.
讜转住讘专讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讞讜讚砖
The Gemara asks: And how can you understand their opinions this way? If so, according to Rabbi Akiva, why specifically require a full month?
讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞讬专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讜讛讻讗 驻讬专讗 专讘讗 讜驻讬专讗 讝讜讟讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜
Even if he plowed the land for one day in the first and third years respectively, it should be sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Rather, everyone agrees that plowing is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and here the difference between their opinions is whether in order to establish the presumption of ownership one needs to possess the land long enough to grow major produce, which requires three months to grow, or only minor produce, which requires one month.
转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞讬专 讗讬谞讜 讞讝拽讛 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讞讝拽讛 诪讗谉 讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 谞专讛 砖谞讛 讜讝专注讛 砖转讬诐 谞专讛 砖转讬诐 讜讝专注讛 砖谞讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛
The Sages taught in a baraita: Plowing is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. And there are those who say: This is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Whose opinion is it that the baraita refers to as: There are those who say? Rav 岣sda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi A岣, as it is taught in a baraita: If the possessor plowed the field for a year and sowed it for two years, or if he plowed it for two years and sowed it for a year, it is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Rabbi A岣 says: This is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, which indicates that he holds that plowing establishes the presumption of ownership.
讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖讗诇讬转 讻诇 讙讚讜诇讬 讛讚讜专 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 谞讬专 讛专讬 讝讛 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讘讬讘讬 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讬专 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讻专讬讘讜 诇讬讛 诇讗专注讬讛 讜砖转讬拽 讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讬专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讬讘讗 讜砖讬讘讗 讚讻专讘讜 诇注讬讬诇 讘讬讛
Rav Ashi said: I asked all of the great men of the generation about this, and they said to me: With regard to plowing, this is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. Rav Beivai said to Rav Na岣an: What is the reason of the one who says that plowing is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? Rav Na岣an answered: A person is not apt to have his land plowed by someone else and remain silent. Rav Beivai asked: And what is the reason of the one who says that plowing is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? Rav Na岣an answered: The owner says to himself: Let each and every clump [shibba] of earth enter the plow. That is to say, the owner is amenable to having someone else plow the land for him, and then he will sow and harvest.
砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 驻讜诐 谞讛专讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讬诇诪讚谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 谞讬专讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讗讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讜讻诇 讙讚讜诇讬 讛讚讜专 讗诪专讬 谞讬专 讛专讬 讝讛 讞讝拽讛
The residents of Pum Nahara sent a question to Rav Na岣an bar Rav 岣sda. Our teacher, instruct us: Is plowing sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, or is it not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? Rav Na岣an bar Rav 岣sda said to them: Rabbi A岣 and all of the great men of the generation say: With regard to plowing, this is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.
讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 专讘讜转讗 诇诪讬讞砖讘 讙讘专讬 讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讘讘讘诇 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专讬 谞讬专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛
Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Is it a novelty to enumerate great men who maintain an opinion without taking into account that of others? But what of Rav and Shmuel in Babylonia, and Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva in Eretz Yisrael, who say: Plowing is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership?
专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 专讘 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讝拽转讛 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讬专 讚诇讗
The Gemara presents the sources for ascribing to these Sages the opinion that plowing does not establish the presumption of ownership. The basis for ascribing it to Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva is the mishna, as the Gemara explained above. What is the basis for ascribing this opinion to Rav? As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This ruling that either a month or three months is sufficient use for the first and third years is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, but the Rabbis, whose opinion is accepted, say: With regard to a field, its presumption of ownership is established by three years, from day to day. The phrase: From day to day, serves to exclude what? Does it not serve to exclude plowing, which does not establish the presumption of ownership?
砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讙讚讜专 砖诇砖 讙讚讬专讜转 讜讬讘爪讜专 砖诇砖 讘爪讬专讜转 讜讬诪住讜拽 砖诇砖 诪住讬拽讜转 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚拽诇 谞注专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖注讜砖讛 砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐 讘砖谞讛:
What is the basis for ascribing this opinion to Shmuel? As Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This ruling that either a month or three months is sufficient use for the first and third years is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, but the Rabbis, whose opinion is accepted, say: He does not establish the presumption of ownership until he harvests three date crops, or harvests three grape crops, or harvests three olive crops. This indicates that Shmuel holds that plowing does not establish the presumption of ownership. What is the difference between the opinions of Rav and Shmuel? Abaye said: The difference between their opinions is whether three harvests of a young [na鈥檃ra] date tree, which produces a crop three times in one year, establishes the presumption of ownership.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讚讛 讛诇讘谉: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞砖诪注 诇专讘谞谉 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讗讬诇谞讜转 诪诪讟注 注砖专讛 诇讘讬转 住讗讛 讗讻诇 注砖专讛 讘砖谞讛 讝讜 讜注砖专讛 讘砖谞讛 讝讜 讜注砖专讛 讘砖谞讛 讝讜 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛
搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yishmael said: In what case is this statement, that eighteen months are required to establish the presumption of ownership of a non-irrigated field, said? With regard to a white field, i.e., a grain field. But with regard to an orchard, harvesting three different crops suffices. Abaye said: From the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael we infer the proper understanding of a detail of the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with him, and hold that three years of harvesting one crop is required to establish the presumption of ownership even with regard to an orchard: If one had thirty trees of one type in a field, and they were planted with a density of ten trees per each area required for sowing one se鈥檃 of seed [beit se鈥檃], and one consumed the produce of ten trees in this first year, and of another ten trees in this second year, and of another ten trees in this third year, this is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.
