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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 10, 2017 | 讬状讘 讘讗讚专 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 47

What is the status of the sons of those who cannot create a chazaka? 聽The son of a robber is different form the son on a craftsman or a sharecropper. 聽What is the case being discussed and why is the son of a robber different? 聽A robber can’t use proof to show that he purchased land because we are concerned that he forced the owner to sell it to him or to write him a deed of sale. 聽Exactly what kind of proof does or doesn’t work is discussed. 聽Rav Huna says that if one forced another to sell sometihng, the sale is a good sale. 聽The gemara attempts to prove on what basis Rav Huna holds this way. 聽Proofs are brought from a voluntary offering (sacrifice) and from forcing a husband to give a get to his wife.


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

拽讘诇谉 讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪注讬讚 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪注讬讚 讻注专讘 讚诪讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讛讜讜 讘讬讚讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讚讻讬 讗转讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 砖拽讬诇

With regard to an unconditional guarantor [kablan], from whom the creditor can collect even if the debtor is able to repay the loan, some say that he can testify on behalf of the debtor if the latter owns other land, and some say that he cannot testify even if the debtor owns other land. The Gemara explains: Some say that he can testify because he is like a guarantor, and some say that he cannot testify, as it is preferable for him that both fields be in the debtor鈥檚 possession, so that when a creditor comes to collect the debt, he will take what he wants, and not collect from the unconditional guarantor.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讘谉 讗讜诪谉 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讗专讬住 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讘谉 讗专讬住 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讙讝诇谉 讜讘谉 讙讝诇谉 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 讘谉 讘谞讜 砖诇 讙讝诇谉 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, but the son of a craftsman has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. A sharecropper does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, but the son of a sharecropper has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. Both a robber and the son of a robber do not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, but the son of the son of a robber has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讗转讜 讘讟注谞转讗 讚讗讘讜讛讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗转讜 讘讟注谞转讗 讚讗讘讜讛讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谉 讙讝诇谉 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances under which there is a distinction between the sons of the craftsman and the sharecropper and the son of the robber? If they come to court with the claim that the item in question belonged to their fathers, then even these sons of the craftsman and the sharecropper should not be able to establish the presumption of ownership, since their claims are based on ownership by those who cannot establish the presumption of ownership. If the case is that they do not come to court with the claim that the item in question belonged to their fathers, but that they own the item in their own right, then even the son of a robber should be able to establish the presumption of ownership.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讛讜讚讛 诇讜 讛谞讱 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 拽讜砖讟讗 拽讗 讗诪专讬 讛讗讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讜讚讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讻讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诪诪讟讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讞诪专讬讛 诇砖讞讜讜专

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this distinction in a case where the witnesses say: The prior owner admitted to their father in our presence that the property was the father鈥檚 and not stolen. The Gemara explains: With regard to these, the sons of the craftsman and sharecropper, it can be said that the sons are saying the truth, as their claim is substantiated by the testimony of the admission. But with regard to that one, the son of the robber, even though the prior owner admitted this, the son is still not deemed credible, in accordance with the statement of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said: If the prior owner would not have admitted this to the robber, the robber would have brought him and his donkey to the taskmaster [lesha岣ar], meaning he would have caused him great difficulties. As a robber is assumed to be a ruffian, it is likely that the prior owner admitted this because he was intimidated, and not because the statement was true, so there is no evidence to support the claim of the robber鈥檚 son.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讘谉 讘谞讜 砖诇 讙讝诇谉 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗 讗转讬 讘讟注谞转讗 讚讗讘讗 讚讗讘讜讛

Rava says: There are times when even the son of the son of the robber does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. What are the circumstances under which this is so? This is so, for example, in a case where he comes to court with the claim that the item in question belonged to his father鈥檚 father. Since his claim is based on its having belonged to one who did not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, he too is unable to establish the presumption of ownership.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讙讝诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜讞讝拽 注诇 砖讚讛 讝讜 讘讙讝诇谞讜转讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讘讬转 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜专讙讬谉 谞驻砖讜转 注诇 注住拽讬 诪诪讜谉

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances under which one is considered a robber, who does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In a case such as where it is established that he is in possession of this field through robbery. And Rav 岣sda says: Not only in a case where there is knowledge about this specific field, but even in a case such as one where he is a member of the household of so-and-so, a certain known criminal family at the time who kill people over monetary matters. Since people would be afraid to lodge a protest against them, members of this family cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to any land.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜诪谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讬专讚 诪讗讜诪谞讜转讜 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讗专讬住 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讬专讚 诪讗专讬住讜转讜 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讘谉 砖讞诇拽 讜讗砖讛 砖谞转讙专砖讛 讛专讬 讛谉 讻砖讗专 讻诇 讗讚诐

The Sages taught: A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. If he descended from his position of craftsmanship and no longer works at that craft, then he has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to items related to his former craft. A sharecropper does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. If he descended from his position as a sharecropper, then he has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to land that he works and from which he profits for three years. A son does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to his father鈥檚 property, nor a wife with regard to her husband鈥檚 property. But with regard to a son who separated himself from his father鈥檚 finances, and a woman who became divorced, they are like other people with regard to this property, and have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership.

讘砖诇诪讗 讘谉 砖讞诇拽 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞讬诇 讙讘讬讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 砖谞转讙专砖讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, it was necessary to state that a son who separated himself establishes the presumption of ownership. If the baraita had not stated this, it would enter your mind to say that the father forgave the unauthorized use of his land by his son, and did not lodge a protest despite the fact that the land did not belong to the son. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not so, and that the son does establish the presumption of ownership. But in the case of the woman who became divorced, it is obvious that she has no relationship with her ex-husband, so why is it necessary for the baraita to teach that she is able to establish the presumption of ownership? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that she does not establish the presumption of ownership

讘诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讘注诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛

in a case where there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira. As Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Shmuel says: Wherever the Sages said with regard to a woman that there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced, her husband is still obligated with regard to her sustenance. One might have thought that since she still has some right to her husband鈥檚 property, insofar as he still has an obligation with regard to her sustenance he would not lodge a protest if she used his land without his authorization. It is therefore necessary to clarify that this is not so, and she has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership in her husband鈥檚 property.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讜谞讗 讻讜诇谉 砖讛讘讬讗讜 专讗讬讛 专讗讬讬转谉 专讗讬讛 讜诪注诪讬讚讬谉 砖讚讛 讘讬讚谉 讙讝诇谉 砖讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讗讬谉 专讗讬讬转讜 专讗讬讛 讜讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 砖讚讛 讘讬讚讜

Rav Na岣an said: Rav Huna said to me that with regard to all of the types of people who do not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, when they bring proof by means of a document or witnesses that a field belongs to them, their proof is a valid proof and the court places the field in their possession. But if there is a robber who brings proof that a field is his, his proof is not a valid proof, and the court does not place the field in his possession. This is due to a concern that the proof was obtained through illegitimate means.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 诇拽讞 诪住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽讞讜 讘讟诇

The Gemara asks: What is this teaching us? We already learned in a mishna (Gittin 55b): If one purchased land from a Sicarius [Sikarikon], a violent gentile who had extorted the field from its owner with threats, and afterward one returned and purchased the same field from the prior owner, his purchase is void, as the owner of the field can say that he did not actually intend to sell him the field. This teaches that a purchase following a robbery is invalid, despite the existence of documents or testimony, rendering the statement of Rav Huna superfluous.

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬 讗讘诇 讘砖讟专 拽谞讛

The Gemara answers: Rav Huna鈥檚 statement serves to exclude that which Rav says, as Rav says: They taught that the purchase of a field from the prior owner after one purchased it from a Sicarius is void only when the prior owner said to the buyer at the time of the sale: Go take possession and thereby acquire the field, but did not write a document. But if the transaction was performed along with a document being given, the buyer acquired the field.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗祝 讘砖讟专 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐

Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us that he rules in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: He does not acquire the field even if the transaction was performed along with a document being given, until the owner of the field writes a property guarantee, i.e., a document that states that if the property is seized by the seller鈥檚 creditor, the seller will reimburse the buyer for his loss. Writing such a document indicates that it is a sincere transaction.

讜专讘 讘讬讘讬 诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽专拽注 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讘诇 诪注讜转 讬砖 诇讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 注讚讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 诪谞讛 诇讜 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 注讚讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讛讜讚讛 诇讜 诇讗 讻讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诪诪讟讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讞诪专讬讛 诇砖讞讜讜专

And Rav Beivai concludes that discussion of the statement of Rav Huna, that a robber does not retain possession of the field even if he brings proof of the transaction, with a comment in the name of Rav Na岣an: The robber does not have rights to the land, but he does have rights to the money that he paid for the land, and the owner has to reimburse him. In what case is this statement that the robber is reimbursed said? It is specifically where the witnesses said: The robber counted out the money for the owner and gave it to him in our presence; but if the witnesses said: The owner admitted to the robber in our presence that he received payment, then the robber is not reimbursed, as the admission may have been made under duress. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, who says: If the owner would not have admitted to the robber that he received payment, the robber would have brought him and his donkey to the taskmaster.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转诇讬讜讛讜 讜讝讘讬谉 讝讘讬谞讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 讚诪讝讘讬谉 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗谞讬住 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讝讘讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讝讘讬谞讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜谞住讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 诪讗讜谞住讗 讚讗讞专讬谞讬 讗诇讗 讻讚转谞讬讗

搂 Apropos transactions performed under duress, the Gemara cites that which Rav Huna says: If one was suspended, e.g., from a tree, and thereby coerced to sell a certain item, and he sold it, his sale is valid. What is the reason? The Gemara suggests that it is because whatever a person sells, were it not for the fact that he is compelled by his need for money, he would not sell it, and even so, his sale is valid. This indicates that a transaction performed under duress is valid. The Gemara rejects this: But perhaps duress that results from his own needs, such as his need for money, is different from duress that results from another, as in this case. Rather, the basis for Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling is as it is taught in a baraita:

  • 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 Shlemah 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 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 47

拽讘诇谉 讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪注讬讚 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪注讬讚 讻注专讘 讚诪讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讛讜讜 讘讬讚讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讚讻讬 讗转讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 砖拽讬诇

With regard to an unconditional guarantor [kablan], from whom the creditor can collect even if the debtor is able to repay the loan, some say that he can testify on behalf of the debtor if the latter owns other land, and some say that he cannot testify even if the debtor owns other land. The Gemara explains: Some say that he can testify because he is like a guarantor, and some say that he cannot testify, as it is preferable for him that both fields be in the debtor鈥檚 possession, so that when a creditor comes to collect the debt, he will take what he wants, and not collect from the unconditional guarantor.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讘谉 讗讜诪谉 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讗专讬住 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讘谉 讗专讬住 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讙讝诇谉 讜讘谉 讙讝诇谉 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 讘谉 讘谞讜 砖诇 讙讝诇谉 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, but the son of a craftsman has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. A sharecropper does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, but the son of a sharecropper has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. Both a robber and the son of a robber do not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, but the son of the son of a robber has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讗转讜 讘讟注谞转讗 讚讗讘讜讛讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗转讜 讘讟注谞转讗 讚讗讘讜讛讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谉 讙讝诇谉 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances under which there is a distinction between the sons of the craftsman and the sharecropper and the son of the robber? If they come to court with the claim that the item in question belonged to their fathers, then even these sons of the craftsman and the sharecropper should not be able to establish the presumption of ownership, since their claims are based on ownership by those who cannot establish the presumption of ownership. If the case is that they do not come to court with the claim that the item in question belonged to their fathers, but that they own the item in their own right, then even the son of a robber should be able to establish the presumption of ownership.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讛讜讚讛 诇讜 讛谞讱 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 拽讜砖讟讗 拽讗 讗诪专讬 讛讗讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讜讚讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讻讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诪诪讟讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讞诪专讬讛 诇砖讞讜讜专

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this distinction in a case where the witnesses say: The prior owner admitted to their father in our presence that the property was the father鈥檚 and not stolen. The Gemara explains: With regard to these, the sons of the craftsman and sharecropper, it can be said that the sons are saying the truth, as their claim is substantiated by the testimony of the admission. But with regard to that one, the son of the robber, even though the prior owner admitted this, the son is still not deemed credible, in accordance with the statement of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said: If the prior owner would not have admitted this to the robber, the robber would have brought him and his donkey to the taskmaster [lesha岣ar], meaning he would have caused him great difficulties. As a robber is assumed to be a ruffian, it is likely that the prior owner admitted this because he was intimidated, and not because the statement was true, so there is no evidence to support the claim of the robber鈥檚 son.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讘谉 讘谞讜 砖诇 讙讝诇谉 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗 讗转讬 讘讟注谞转讗 讚讗讘讗 讚讗讘讜讛

Rava says: There are times when even the son of the son of the robber does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. What are the circumstances under which this is so? This is so, for example, in a case where he comes to court with the claim that the item in question belonged to his father鈥檚 father. Since his claim is based on its having belonged to one who did not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, he too is unable to establish the presumption of ownership.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讙讝诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜讞讝拽 注诇 砖讚讛 讝讜 讘讙讝诇谞讜转讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讘讬转 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜专讙讬谉 谞驻砖讜转 注诇 注住拽讬 诪诪讜谉

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances under which one is considered a robber, who does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In a case such as where it is established that he is in possession of this field through robbery. And Rav 岣sda says: Not only in a case where there is knowledge about this specific field, but even in a case such as one where he is a member of the household of so-and-so, a certain known criminal family at the time who kill people over monetary matters. Since people would be afraid to lodge a protest against them, members of this family cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to any land.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜诪谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讬专讚 诪讗讜诪谞讜转讜 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讗专讬住 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讬专讚 诪讗专讬住讜转讜 讬砖 诇讜 讞讝拽讛 讘谉 砖讞诇拽 讜讗砖讛 砖谞转讙专砖讛 讛专讬 讛谉 讻砖讗专 讻诇 讗讚诐

The Sages taught: A craftsman does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. If he descended from his position of craftsmanship and no longer works at that craft, then he has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to items related to his former craft. A sharecropper does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership. If he descended from his position as a sharecropper, then he has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to land that he works and from which he profits for three years. A son does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to his father鈥檚 property, nor a wife with regard to her husband鈥檚 property. But with regard to a son who separated himself from his father鈥檚 finances, and a woman who became divorced, they are like other people with regard to this property, and have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership.

讘砖诇诪讗 讘谉 砖讞诇拽 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞讬诇 讙讘讬讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讗诇讗 讗砖讛 砖谞转讙专砖讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, it was necessary to state that a son who separated himself establishes the presumption of ownership. If the baraita had not stated this, it would enter your mind to say that the father forgave the unauthorized use of his land by his son, and did not lodge a protest despite the fact that the land did not belong to the son. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not so, and that the son does establish the presumption of ownership. But in the case of the woman who became divorced, it is obvious that she has no relationship with her ex-husband, so why is it necessary for the baraita to teach that she is able to establish the presumption of ownership? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that she does not establish the presumption of ownership

讘诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讘注诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛

in a case where there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira. As Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Shmuel says: Wherever the Sages said with regard to a woman that there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced, her husband is still obligated with regard to her sustenance. One might have thought that since she still has some right to her husband鈥檚 property, insofar as he still has an obligation with regard to her sustenance he would not lodge a protest if she used his land without his authorization. It is therefore necessary to clarify that this is not so, and she has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership in her husband鈥檚 property.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讜谞讗 讻讜诇谉 砖讛讘讬讗讜 专讗讬讛 专讗讬讬转谉 专讗讬讛 讜诪注诪讬讚讬谉 砖讚讛 讘讬讚谉 讙讝诇谉 砖讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讗讬谉 专讗讬讬转讜 专讗讬讛 讜讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 砖讚讛 讘讬讚讜

Rav Na岣an said: Rav Huna said to me that with regard to all of the types of people who do not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership, when they bring proof by means of a document or witnesses that a field belongs to them, their proof is a valid proof and the court places the field in their possession. But if there is a robber who brings proof that a field is his, his proof is not a valid proof, and the court does not place the field in his possession. This is due to a concern that the proof was obtained through illegitimate means.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 诇拽讞 诪住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽讞讜 讘讟诇

The Gemara asks: What is this teaching us? We already learned in a mishna (Gittin 55b): If one purchased land from a Sicarius [Sikarikon], a violent gentile who had extorted the field from its owner with threats, and afterward one returned and purchased the same field from the prior owner, his purchase is void, as the owner of the field can say that he did not actually intend to sell him the field. This teaches that a purchase following a robbery is invalid, despite the existence of documents or testimony, rendering the statement of Rav Huna superfluous.

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬 讗讘诇 讘砖讟专 拽谞讛

The Gemara answers: Rav Huna鈥檚 statement serves to exclude that which Rav says, as Rav says: They taught that the purchase of a field from the prior owner after one purchased it from a Sicarius is void only when the prior owner said to the buyer at the time of the sale: Go take possession and thereby acquire the field, but did not write a document. But if the transaction was performed along with a document being given, the buyer acquired the field.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗祝 讘砖讟专 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬讻转讜讘 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐

Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us that he rules in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: He does not acquire the field even if the transaction was performed along with a document being given, until the owner of the field writes a property guarantee, i.e., a document that states that if the property is seized by the seller鈥檚 creditor, the seller will reimburse the buyer for his loss. Writing such a document indicates that it is a sincere transaction.

讜专讘 讘讬讘讬 诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽专拽注 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讘诇 诪注讜转 讬砖 诇讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 注讚讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 诪谞讛 诇讜 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 注讚讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讛讜讚讛 诇讜 诇讗 讻讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诪诪讟讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讞诪专讬讛 诇砖讞讜讜专

And Rav Beivai concludes that discussion of the statement of Rav Huna, that a robber does not retain possession of the field even if he brings proof of the transaction, with a comment in the name of Rav Na岣an: The robber does not have rights to the land, but he does have rights to the money that he paid for the land, and the owner has to reimburse him. In what case is this statement that the robber is reimbursed said? It is specifically where the witnesses said: The robber counted out the money for the owner and gave it to him in our presence; but if the witnesses said: The owner admitted to the robber in our presence that he received payment, then the robber is not reimbursed, as the admission may have been made under duress. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, who says: If the owner would not have admitted to the robber that he received payment, the robber would have brought him and his donkey to the taskmaster.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转诇讬讜讛讜 讜讝讘讬谉 讝讘讬谞讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 讚诪讝讘讬谉 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗谞讬住 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讝讘讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讝讘讬谞讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜谞住讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 诪讗讜谞住讗 讚讗讞专讬谞讬 讗诇讗 讻讚转谞讬讗

搂 Apropos transactions performed under duress, the Gemara cites that which Rav Huna says: If one was suspended, e.g., from a tree, and thereby coerced to sell a certain item, and he sold it, his sale is valid. What is the reason? The Gemara suggests that it is because whatever a person sells, were it not for the fact that he is compelled by his need for money, he would not sell it, and even so, his sale is valid. This indicates that a transaction performed under duress is valid. The Gemara rejects this: But perhaps duress that results from his own needs, such as his need for money, is different from duress that results from another, as in this case. Rather, the basis for Rav Huna鈥檚 ruling is as it is taught in a baraita:

Scroll To Top