The Mishna says that a man can’t create a chazaka on his wife’s usufruct property. This implies that if he brought a document attesting to ownership, he could prove the purchase of the land. However, this is questioned from another Mishna (regarding a different case) in which a wife can claim she agreed to sale of her usufruct property only because she wanted to please her husband and can thus invalidate a document testifying to a sale. The Gemara explains why that Mishna is referring to a different case and would not be relevant here. The inference is also questioned by Ameimar’s statement that a man and woman who sell usufruct property did not do anything – the sale is invalid. Two possible answers are given. Another question on the Mishna itself is brought from Rav who holds that a married woman needs to protest (otherwise one can create a chazaka on her property). Initially, the Gemara thinks this is referring to her husband, but that contradicts the Mishna. Rav Yosef explains that it could be referring to another man in which case his statement has nothing to do with the Mishna.
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 week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
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 week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Bava Batra 50
וְאַחַת שֶׁיִּחֵד לָהּ בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, וְאַחַת שֶׁהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שׁוּם מִשֶּׁלָּהּ.
and one that he specified to her as payment for her marriage contract, even though it was not stipulated explicitly in the contract; and one in a case where she brought into the marriage an appraisal of a field from her own property that she owned prior to the marriage, which took on the status of guaranteed property, meaning that she will receive it if her husband dies or divorces her. If a field of one of these three types is sold with her approval, she can claim that she did not truly consent to this sale, but stated her consent only in order to please her husband.
לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁאָר נְכָסִים – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּהָוְיָא לֵיהּ אֵיבָה, דְּאָמַר לַהּ: עֵינַיִךְ נָתַתְּ בְּגֵירוּשִׁין וּבְמִיתָה!
The Gemara clarifies: To exclude what type of property did Rabba specify these three types of fields? If we say that he intends to exclude the rest of the husband’s property secured to pay her marriage contract, it is all the more so the case that he will bear her enmity if she does not agree to the sale, as he will say to her: You have placed your eyes on divorce or on my death, i.e., you will not allow me to sell my property because you are expecting and planning for my death or our divorce. Therefore, she should be able to claim that she consented to the sale only in order to please her husband with regard to other property as well.
אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג – הָאָמַר אַמֵּימָר: אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּכְרוּ בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג – לֹא עָשׂוּ וְלֹא כְּלוּם!
Rather, these three types of fields were specified in order to exclude usufruct property, i.e., property that belongs to the wife and remains in her possession while the husband has the right to enjoy the profits, in which case if the wife consents to the sale, it is valid. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Ameimar say that if there was a man or a woman, i.e., a husband or a wife, who sold the wife’s usufruct property, they did not accomplish anything, as the sale does not take effect?
כִּי אִיתְּמַר דְּאַמֵּימַר – הֵיכָא דְּזַבֵּין אִיהוּ וּמִית, אַתְיָא אִיהִי וּמַפְּקָא; אִי נָמֵי זַבִּנָה אִיהִי וּמִתָה, אָתֵא אִיהוּ וּמַפֵּיק בְּתַקַּנְתָּא דְרַבָּנַן – וְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ, הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּכְרָה בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג, וּמֵתָה – הַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת;
The Gemara answers: When the statement of Ameimar was stated, it was to say that neither the husband nor the wife can sell the property unilaterally. Where he sold the property and then died, she can come and remove it from the buyer. Alternatively, in a case where she sold it and then died, he can come and remove it, due to a rabbinic ordinance, and in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: When the Sanhedrin convened in Usha, they instituted that in the case of a woman who sold her usufruct property in her husband’s lifetime and then died, the husband repossesses it from the buyers.
אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּזַבִּינוּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְעָלְמָא, אִי נָמֵי זַבִּנָה אִיהִי לְדִידֵיהּ – זְבִינַהּ זְבִינֵי.
But where the two of them sold it to someone, or if she sold it to her husband, the sale is valid. The inference that the Gemara drew from the mishna, that if the husband produces evidence that his wife sold usufruct property to him then he is regarded as the owner, is relevant when she sells her usufruct property to him.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אַמֵּימָר דְּאָמַר – כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר,
And if you wish, say instead that Ameimar said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that one can sell property only if he possesses the item itself and also has the right to enjoy its profits.
דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַבְדּוֹ, וּפָסַק עִמּוֹ שֶׁיְּשַׁמְּשֶׁנּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם –
This is as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who sells his Canaanite slave to another, and contracted with him that the sale is on the condition that the slave will serve the seller for thirty days before he is transferred to the buyer, the outcome of this sale is that during those thirty days, the first master enjoys the use of the slave and the buyer is the owner of the slave himself. As detailed in the Torah (Exodus 21:18–21), if one strikes another and the injury leads directly to the victim’s death, the one who struck him is subject to court-imposed capital punishment. But if a master strikes his Canaanite slave, and the slave lingers with his injuries for more than a day or two days and then dies, the master is exempt from court-imposed capital punishment. The baraita addresses who is considered the owner of the slave with regard to this halakha.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הָרִאשׁוֹן יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא תַּחְתָּיו; וְהַשֵּׁנִי אֵינוֹ בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ תַּחְתָּיו –
The baraita states four opinions: Rabbi Meir says that during those thirty days, only the first master is included in the halakha of “a day or two days” (Exodus 21:21). Rabbi Meir holds that in this case, the first master is included in this exemption, because the slave is under his authority, as he enjoys the use of the slave, but the second master is not included in the halakha of “a day or two days,” because the slave is not under his authority.
קָסָבַר: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.
Rabbi Meir’s reasoning is that he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is like ownership of the item itself. The status of the first master as the owner negates the possibility that the second master would be regarded as the owner with regard to this halakha, and he would not be included in the exemption.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַשֵּׁנִי יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כַּסְפּוֹ; הָרִאשׁוֹן אֵינוֹ בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כַּסְפּוֹ – קָסָבַר: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says that the second master is included in the halakha of “a day or two days,” because the slave is “his money” (Exodus 21:21), i.e., his property; but the first master is not included in the halakha of “a day or two days,” because the slave is not “his money.” Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is that he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is not like ownership of the item itself. Therefore, the first master, who currently enjoys the use of the slave, does not have the status of an owner with regard to this halakha.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר:
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei says that
שְׁנֵיהֶם יֶשְׁנָן בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם – זֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא תַּחְתָּיו, וְזֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כַּסְפּוֹ – וּמְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, אִי לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, וְסָפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת לְהָקֵל.
both of them are included in the halakha of “a day or two days.” This first master is included because the slave is under his authority, and that second master is included because the slave is “his money.” The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning: And he is uncertain if ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is like ownership of the item itself, in which case only the first master would be exempt, or if it is not like ownership of the item itself, in which case only the second master would be exempt. And where there is an uncertainty in a case of capital law, the ruling is to be lenient. Therefore, neither of them would receive court-imposed capital punishment in this case.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵינָן בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם – זֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ תַּחְתָּיו, וְזֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כַּסְפּוֹ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar says that both of them are not included in the halakha of “a day or two days,” and both would receive court-imposed capital punishment. This second master is not included because the slave is not under his authority, and that first master is not included because the slave is not “his money.” Rabbi Eliezer holds that one must both own the slave himself and enjoy the use of the slave to be included in the exemption.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יֻקַּם כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא״ – כַּסְפּוֹ הַמְיוּחָד לוֹ.
The Gemara explains how Ameimar’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. And Rava says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? The verse states: “Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two days, he shall not be punished; for he is his money” (Exodus 21:21), and he understands this to be referring to a slave that is “his money,” a slave that is unique to him, so this exemption does not apply to one who does not have total ownership of the slave. Rabbi Elazar holds that one is considered to own an item only if he owns the item itself and also enjoys the use of it. This is the source of Ameimar’s statement that neither the husband nor the wife can sell usufruct property: The husband cannot sell it because he does not own it, and the wife cannot sell it because only the husband has the right to enjoy the profits.
וְלֹא לָאִישׁ חֲזָקָה בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְהָאָמַר רַב: אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ צְרִיכָה לְמַחוֹת! בְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא בְּאַחֵר – וְהָאָמַר רַב: אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. אֶלָּא לָאו בְּבַעַל?
§ The mishna teaches that a man does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to his wife’s property. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav say that a married woman must protest? The Gemara clarifies: With regard to whom must she protest? If we say: With regard to another, i.e., one who is not her husband who has taken possession of her property, that is problematic: But doesn’t Rav say that one cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of a married woman, as she can claim that she did not lodge a protest because she expected her husband to do so? Rather, Rav’s intention must be that she must lodge a protest with regard to the husband. This indicates that absent her protest, it is possible for a husband to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to her property, in contrast to the ruling of the mishna.
אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם בְּבַעַל, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁחָפַר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת, שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת.
Rava said: Actually, Rav is referring to her lodging a protest with regard to the husband, and is speaking of a case where he dug pits, ditches, and caves in her property. In other words, he did not simply work and profit from the land, but damaged it in a way that demonstrates that he considered himself the owner. If he does this for three years and she does not lodge a protest, he establishes the presumption of ownership. The mishna, which states that he cannot establish the presumption of ownership, is referring to standard use.
וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֵין חֲזָקָה לִנְזָקִין!
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh said: There is no presumptive ownership with regard to damage? This is understood to mean that one cannot establish the presumption of ownership of another’s field by damaging it, as it is not considered to be standard use. Therefore, even after three years have passed the owner can remove one from his field. Since in this case the husband is damaging the field, he should not be able to establish the presumption of ownership.
אֵימָא: אֵין דִּין חֲזָקָה לִנְזָקִין.
The Gemara answers: Say that this means that the halakha of presumptive ownership does not apply with regard to damage, meaning that one who damages another’s property without the owner lodging a protest does not need three years to establish the presumption of ownership, but does so immediately, as an owner who sees another damage his land is expected to protest without delay. Consequently, a husband who digs pits and the like in his wife’s property without her lodging a protest establishes the presumption of ownership immediately.
אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, רַב מָרִי אָמַר: בְּקוּטְרָא, רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא?
The Gemara offers an alternative answer. If you wish, say instead: Was it not stated with regard to the halakha that there is no presumptive ownership with regard to damage that Rav Mari says: Damage is referring specifically to smoke, and Rav Zevid says that it is referring to a bathroom? The statement that there is no presumptive ownership [ḥazaka] with regard to damage was not stated concerning establishing the presumption of ownership of property, but concerning acquiring the privilege [ḥazaka] to engage in certain activities on one’s own property, and is stating that even if one has engaged in activities that produce smoke or foul odors, the fact that the neighbors did not lodge a protest in the past does not prevent them from doing so in the future.
רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם בְּאַחֵר, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ מִקְצָת חֲזָקָה בְּחַיֵּי הַבַּעַל, וְשָׁלֹשׁ לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל; מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי אָמַר לַיהּ: ״אֲנָא זְבֵינְתַּהּ מִינָּךְ״, כִּי אָמַר לַהּ נָמֵי: ״אַתְּ זַבֵּינְתַּהּ לֵיהּ וְזַבְּנַהּ נִיהֲלִי״ – מְהֵימַן.
Rav Yosef said: Actually, Rav is referring to her lodging a protest with regard to another, and is speaking of a case where the one who has possession of her property worked and profited from the field for part of the time necessary to establish the presumption of ownership during the husband’s lifetime, and for three additional years after the husband’s death. In this case, if the woman does not lodge a protest, the possessor establishes the presumption of ownership, since if he wanted to, he could say to the woman: I purchased it from you and then possessed the field for three years, and he would be awarded the field. When he said to her as well: You sold the field to your husband and he sold it to me, he is deemed credible.
גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב: אֵין מַחְזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ.
The Gemara returns to discuss Rav’s statement: With regard to the matter itself, Rav says that one cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of a married woman,
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.
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
Berlin, Germany
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
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
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
Bava Batra 50
וְאַחַת שֶׁיִּחֵד לָהּ בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, וְאַחַת שֶׁהִכְנִיסָה לוֹ שׁוּם מִשֶּׁלָּהּ.
and one that he specified to her as payment for her marriage contract, even though it was not stipulated explicitly in the contract; and one in a case where she brought into the marriage an appraisal of a field from her own property that she owned prior to the marriage, which took on the status of guaranteed property, meaning that she will receive it if her husband dies or divorces her. If a field of one of these three types is sold with her approval, she can claim that she did not truly consent to this sale, but stated her consent only in order to please her husband.
לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁאָר נְכָסִים – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּהָוְיָא לֵיהּ אֵיבָה, דְּאָמַר לַהּ: עֵינַיִךְ נָתַתְּ בְּגֵירוּשִׁין וּבְמִיתָה!
The Gemara clarifies: To exclude what type of property did Rabba specify these three types of fields? If we say that he intends to exclude the rest of the husband’s property secured to pay her marriage contract, it is all the more so the case that he will bear her enmity if she does not agree to the sale, as he will say to her: You have placed your eyes on divorce or on my death, i.e., you will not allow me to sell my property because you are expecting and planning for my death or our divorce. Therefore, she should be able to claim that she consented to the sale only in order to please her husband with regard to other property as well.
אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג – הָאָמַר אַמֵּימָר: אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּכְרוּ בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג – לֹא עָשׂוּ וְלֹא כְּלוּם!
Rather, these three types of fields were specified in order to exclude usufruct property, i.e., property that belongs to the wife and remains in her possession while the husband has the right to enjoy the profits, in which case if the wife consents to the sale, it is valid. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Ameimar say that if there was a man or a woman, i.e., a husband or a wife, who sold the wife’s usufruct property, they did not accomplish anything, as the sale does not take effect?
כִּי אִיתְּמַר דְּאַמֵּימַר – הֵיכָא דְּזַבֵּין אִיהוּ וּמִית, אַתְיָא אִיהִי וּמַפְּקָא; אִי נָמֵי זַבִּנָה אִיהִי וּמִתָה, אָתֵא אִיהוּ וּמַפֵּיק בְּתַקַּנְתָּא דְרַבָּנַן – וְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ, הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּכְרָה בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג, וּמֵתָה – הַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת;
The Gemara answers: When the statement of Ameimar was stated, it was to say that neither the husband nor the wife can sell the property unilaterally. Where he sold the property and then died, she can come and remove it from the buyer. Alternatively, in a case where she sold it and then died, he can come and remove it, due to a rabbinic ordinance, and in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: When the Sanhedrin convened in Usha, they instituted that in the case of a woman who sold her usufruct property in her husband’s lifetime and then died, the husband repossesses it from the buyers.
אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּזַבִּינוּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְעָלְמָא, אִי נָמֵי זַבִּנָה אִיהִי לְדִידֵיהּ – זְבִינַהּ זְבִינֵי.
But where the two of them sold it to someone, or if she sold it to her husband, the sale is valid. The inference that the Gemara drew from the mishna, that if the husband produces evidence that his wife sold usufruct property to him then he is regarded as the owner, is relevant when she sells her usufruct property to him.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אַמֵּימָר דְּאָמַר – כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר,
And if you wish, say instead that Ameimar said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that one can sell property only if he possesses the item itself and also has the right to enjoy its profits.
דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַבְדּוֹ, וּפָסַק עִמּוֹ שֶׁיְּשַׁמְּשֶׁנּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם –
This is as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who sells his Canaanite slave to another, and contracted with him that the sale is on the condition that the slave will serve the seller for thirty days before he is transferred to the buyer, the outcome of this sale is that during those thirty days, the first master enjoys the use of the slave and the buyer is the owner of the slave himself. As detailed in the Torah (Exodus 21:18–21), if one strikes another and the injury leads directly to the victim’s death, the one who struck him is subject to court-imposed capital punishment. But if a master strikes his Canaanite slave, and the slave lingers with his injuries for more than a day or two days and then dies, the master is exempt from court-imposed capital punishment. The baraita addresses who is considered the owner of the slave with regard to this halakha.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הָרִאשׁוֹן יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא תַּחְתָּיו; וְהַשֵּׁנִי אֵינוֹ בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ תַּחְתָּיו –
The baraita states four opinions: Rabbi Meir says that during those thirty days, only the first master is included in the halakha of “a day or two days” (Exodus 21:21). Rabbi Meir holds that in this case, the first master is included in this exemption, because the slave is under his authority, as he enjoys the use of the slave, but the second master is not included in the halakha of “a day or two days,” because the slave is not under his authority.
קָסָבַר: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.
Rabbi Meir’s reasoning is that he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is like ownership of the item itself. The status of the first master as the owner negates the possibility that the second master would be regarded as the owner with regard to this halakha, and he would not be included in the exemption.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַשֵּׁנִי יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כַּסְפּוֹ; הָרִאשׁוֹן אֵינוֹ בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כַּסְפּוֹ – קָסָבַר: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says that the second master is included in the halakha of “a day or two days,” because the slave is “his money” (Exodus 21:21), i.e., his property; but the first master is not included in the halakha of “a day or two days,” because the slave is not “his money.” Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is that he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is not like ownership of the item itself. Therefore, the first master, who currently enjoys the use of the slave, does not have the status of an owner with regard to this halakha.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר:
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei says that
שְׁנֵיהֶם יֶשְׁנָן בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם – זֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא תַּחְתָּיו, וְזֶה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כַּסְפּוֹ – וּמְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, אִי לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, וְסָפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת לְהָקֵל.
both of them are included in the halakha of “a day or two days.” This first master is included because the slave is under his authority, and that second master is included because the slave is “his money.” The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning: And he is uncertain if ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is like ownership of the item itself, in which case only the first master would be exempt, or if it is not like ownership of the item itself, in which case only the second master would be exempt. And where there is an uncertainty in a case of capital law, the ruling is to be lenient. Therefore, neither of them would receive court-imposed capital punishment in this case.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵינָן בְּדִין יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם – זֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ תַּחְתָּיו, וְזֶה לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כַּסְפּוֹ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar says that both of them are not included in the halakha of “a day or two days,” and both would receive court-imposed capital punishment. This second master is not included because the slave is not under his authority, and that first master is not included because the slave is not “his money.” Rabbi Eliezer holds that one must both own the slave himself and enjoy the use of the slave to be included in the exemption.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יֻקַּם כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא״ – כַּסְפּוֹ הַמְיוּחָד לוֹ.
The Gemara explains how Ameimar’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. And Rava says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? The verse states: “Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two days, he shall not be punished; for he is his money” (Exodus 21:21), and he understands this to be referring to a slave that is “his money,” a slave that is unique to him, so this exemption does not apply to one who does not have total ownership of the slave. Rabbi Elazar holds that one is considered to own an item only if he owns the item itself and also enjoys the use of it. This is the source of Ameimar’s statement that neither the husband nor the wife can sell usufruct property: The husband cannot sell it because he does not own it, and the wife cannot sell it because only the husband has the right to enjoy the profits.
וְלֹא לָאִישׁ חֲזָקָה בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְהָאָמַר רַב: אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ צְרִיכָה לְמַחוֹת! בְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא בְּאַחֵר – וְהָאָמַר רַב: אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. אֶלָּא לָאו בְּבַעַל?
§ The mishna teaches that a man does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to his wife’s property. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav say that a married woman must protest? The Gemara clarifies: With regard to whom must she protest? If we say: With regard to another, i.e., one who is not her husband who has taken possession of her property, that is problematic: But doesn’t Rav say that one cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of a married woman, as she can claim that she did not lodge a protest because she expected her husband to do so? Rather, Rav’s intention must be that she must lodge a protest with regard to the husband. This indicates that absent her protest, it is possible for a husband to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to her property, in contrast to the ruling of the mishna.
אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם בְּבַעַל, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁחָפַר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת, שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת.
Rava said: Actually, Rav is referring to her lodging a protest with regard to the husband, and is speaking of a case where he dug pits, ditches, and caves in her property. In other words, he did not simply work and profit from the land, but damaged it in a way that demonstrates that he considered himself the owner. If he does this for three years and she does not lodge a protest, he establishes the presumption of ownership. The mishna, which states that he cannot establish the presumption of ownership, is referring to standard use.
וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֵין חֲזָקָה לִנְזָקִין!
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh said: There is no presumptive ownership with regard to damage? This is understood to mean that one cannot establish the presumption of ownership of another’s field by damaging it, as it is not considered to be standard use. Therefore, even after three years have passed the owner can remove one from his field. Since in this case the husband is damaging the field, he should not be able to establish the presumption of ownership.
אֵימָא: אֵין דִּין חֲזָקָה לִנְזָקִין.
The Gemara answers: Say that this means that the halakha of presumptive ownership does not apply with regard to damage, meaning that one who damages another’s property without the owner lodging a protest does not need three years to establish the presumption of ownership, but does so immediately, as an owner who sees another damage his land is expected to protest without delay. Consequently, a husband who digs pits and the like in his wife’s property without her lodging a protest establishes the presumption of ownership immediately.
אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, רַב מָרִי אָמַר: בְּקוּטְרָא, רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא?
The Gemara offers an alternative answer. If you wish, say instead: Was it not stated with regard to the halakha that there is no presumptive ownership with regard to damage that Rav Mari says: Damage is referring specifically to smoke, and Rav Zevid says that it is referring to a bathroom? The statement that there is no presumptive ownership [ḥazaka] with regard to damage was not stated concerning establishing the presumption of ownership of property, but concerning acquiring the privilege [ḥazaka] to engage in certain activities on one’s own property, and is stating that even if one has engaged in activities that produce smoke or foul odors, the fact that the neighbors did not lodge a protest in the past does not prevent them from doing so in the future.
רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם בְּאַחֵר, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ מִקְצָת חֲזָקָה בְּחַיֵּי הַבַּעַל, וְשָׁלֹשׁ לְאַחַר מִיתַת הַבַּעַל; מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי אָמַר לַיהּ: ״אֲנָא זְבֵינְתַּהּ מִינָּךְ״, כִּי אָמַר לַהּ נָמֵי: ״אַתְּ זַבֵּינְתַּהּ לֵיהּ וְזַבְּנַהּ נִיהֲלִי״ – מְהֵימַן.
Rav Yosef said: Actually, Rav is referring to her lodging a protest with regard to another, and is speaking of a case where the one who has possession of her property worked and profited from the field for part of the time necessary to establish the presumption of ownership during the husband’s lifetime, and for three additional years after the husband’s death. In this case, if the woman does not lodge a protest, the possessor establishes the presumption of ownership, since if he wanted to, he could say to the woman: I purchased it from you and then possessed the field for three years, and he would be awarded the field. When he said to her as well: You sold the field to your husband and he sold it to me, he is deemed credible.
גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב: אֵין מַחְזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ.
The Gemara returns to discuss Rav’s statement: With regard to the matter itself, Rav says that one cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of a married woman,
