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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 15, 2017 | 讬状讝 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 52

One should not accept to watch over an item given to them by a woman, Caananite slave or child as they are suspected that the item is the husband/owner/father’s. 聽But if one did, it can be returned to the one who gave it to him. 聽If a son is independent from a father, then he can create a chazaka on the father’s property. 聽If one’s brother is in charge of all the inheritance property and there are documents that say he has ownership on part of the property and he claims it came to him through inheritance on his mother’s side, Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether or not the burden of proof lies on him (as he is suspect) or the burden of proof lies on the brothers (as he has a document of ownership).

拽讘诇 诪谉 讛拽讟谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜 住讙讜诇讛 讜讗诐 诪转 讬讞讝讬专 诇讬讜专砖讬讜

If one accepted a deposit from a minor, he cannot return it to him, as a minor is unable to properly safeguard the item. Instead, he must make a safe investment [segulla] for him, and if the minor dies, he must return it to his heirs.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讘砖注转 诪讬转转谉 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛谉 讬注砖讛 讻驻讬专讜砖谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬注砖讛 驻讬专讜砖 诇驻讬专讜砖谉

And with regard to all these people, who said at the time of their death that the deposited item belongs to so-and-so, the bailee should act as they had explained, and if their explanation was not credible, the bailee should form an explanation of their explanation, i.e., ignore what they said.

讚讘讬转讛讜 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讻讬 拽讗 砖讻讘讛 讗诪专讛 讛谞讬 讻讬驻讬 讚诪专转讗 讜讘谞讬 讘专转讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗 诇讱 注砖讛 讻驻讬专讜砖讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 注砖讛 驻讬专讜砖 诇驻讬专讜砖讛

The Gemara relates: When the wife of Rabba bar bar 岣na was dying she said: These rings that are in my possession belong to Marta and the sons of her daughter. Rabba bar bar 岣na came before Rav to ask what he should do. Rav said to him: If she is credible in your eyes, act as she had explained, and if not, form an explanation of her explanation, i.e., ignore what she said, and as her heir, keep them for yourself.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪讬讚讗 诇讱 注砖讛 讻驻讬专讜砖讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 注砖讛 驻讬专讜砖 诇驻讬专讜砖讛

And there are those who say that this is what Rav said to him: If you assess that it is likely that the rings were deposited with her, act as she had explained, and if not, form an explanation of her explanation.

诪谉 讛拽讟谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜 住讙讜诇讛 诪讗讬 住讙讜诇讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 住驻专 转讜专讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讚讬拽诇讗 讚讗讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 转诪专讬

The baraita stated that if the bailee took a deposit from a minor, he must make a safe investment for him. The Gemara asks: What is meant by a safe investment? Rav 岣sda says: The bailee should purchase a Torah scroll for the minor. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: He should purchase a date palm, from which the minor will consume dates.

讜诇讗 诇讗讘 讘谞讻住讬 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 诇讘谉 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 讞诇拽讜 诇讗

搂 The mishna teaches: And a father does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a son鈥檚 property, and a son does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a father鈥檚 property. Rav Yosef says: Even if they separated and the son is no longer dependent on his father, the presumption of ownership still cannot be established by a father or son with regard to the other鈥檚 property. Rava says: If they separated, that is not the halakha, and the presumption of ownership can be established.

讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚驻转讬 注讘讚 专讘 驻驻讬 注讜讘讚讗 讞诇拽讜 诇讗 讻专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬砖转注讬 诇讬 专讘 讞讬讬讗 诪讛讜专诪讬讝 讗专讚砖讬讚 讚讗讬砖转注讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬注拽讘 讞诇拽讜 诇讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讞诇拽讜 诇讗 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘谉 砖讞诇拽 讜讗砖转讜 砖谞转讙专砖讛 讛专讬 讛谉 讻砖讗专 讻诇 讗讚诐

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: Rav Pappi performed an action and ruled that if they separated, that is not the halakha, in accordance with the opinion of Rava. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that Rav 岣yya, from the city of Hurmiz Ardeshid, told me that Rav A岣 bar Yaakov told him in the name of Rav Na岣an bar Yaakov: If they separated, that is not the halakha. The Gemara notes: And this is the halakha: If they separated, that is not the halakha, and the presumption of ownership can be established. This is also taught in a baraita: A son who separated himself from his father鈥檚 finances and a wife who became divorced are like all other people with regard to establishing the presumption of ownership.

讗讬转诪专 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讛讬讛 谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讛讬讜 讗讜谞讜转 讜砖讟专讜转 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇 砖诪讜 讜讗诪专 砖诇讬 讛诐 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讬 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 注诇讬讜 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 注诇 讛讗讞讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜讚讛 诇讬 讗讘讗 砖讗诐 诪转 注诇 讛讗讞讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

搂 It was stated: There was a case of one of the brothers in a family who was engaging in commerce in the house, managing the family finances after the death of their father, and there were bills of sale [onot] and other documents circulating with his name appearing as the owner of the property and as a lender, and that brother said: The money and property are mine, as they fell to me as an inheritance from the house of the father of my mother, who is not the mother of the other brothers, Rav says: It is upon him to bring proof of ownership; otherwise the property is divided equally among the brothers. And Shmuel says: It is upon the brothers to bring proof that the money or property belonged to their common father and consequently now belongs to all of them. Shmuel says: Abba, i.e., Rav, concedes to me that if that brother dies, it is upon the brothers to bring proof in order to collect money from the deceased brother鈥檚 heirs.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诇讜诐 讟注谞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诇讬转诪讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讟注谉 诇讛讜 讗讘讜讛讜谉 讜讛讗 专讘讗 讗驻讬拽 讝讜讙讗 讚住专讘诇讗 讜住驻专讗 讚讗讙讚转讗 诪讬转诪讬 讘诇讗 专讗讬讛 讘讚讘专讬诐 讛注砖讜讬诐 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜诇讛砖讻讬专

Rav Pappa objects to Shmuel鈥檚 addendum: Do we claim on behalf of orphans anything that their father could not claim for them? But didn鈥檛 Rava remove a pair of scissors used for cutting garments and a book of aggada from orphans without requiring the prior owner who had asked the orphans to return these items to bring proof of ownership, and he would rule the same in the case of all items with regard to which it is common for them to be lent, and the one in possession has no presumption of ownership?

讻讚砖诇讞 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 讛注砖讜讬谉 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜诇讛砖讻讬专 讜讗诪专 诇拽讜讞讬谉 讛谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 拽砖讬讗

As Rav Huna bar Avin sent a ruling: If one other than the one previously established to be the owner is in possession of items that are typically lent or rented, and says: They are purchased, and that is why they are in my possession, he is not deemed credible. In this case as well, as the father of the orphans could not be awarded these documents without bringing proof, the same should be true of his orphans. Why, then, would Rav concede to Shmuel? The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘注讬住转谉 讗讘诇 讞诇讜拽讬诐 讘注讬住转谉 讗讬诪讜专 诪注讬住转讜 拽讬诪抓

Rav 岣sda says: They, i.e., Rav, taught his ruling, that the brother must bring proof that he owns the property listed in the documents that appear under his name, only when they do not divide any of their property, even with regard to their dough, i.e., they share everything, even their food. But if they divide with regard to their dough, say that this brother removed money from his dough, i.e., reduced his expenses for food, thereby amassing his own property.

专讗讬讛 讘诪讗讬 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讗讬讛 讘拽讬讜诐 讛砖讟专

With regard to the requirement that proof be brought, the Gemara asks: With what is one considered to have brought proof? Rabba says: Proof is brought with the testimony of witnesses that he purchased the property listed in the document or granted the loan with his own money or that he inherited it from his mother鈥檚 family. Rav Sheshet says: Proof is brought with the court鈥檚 ratification of the document in which his name appears.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗 专讘 讜讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 专讘讛 讜讛讗 专讘 砖砖转 诪专 讻诪讗谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讛讬讛 谞讜转谉 讜谞讜砖讗 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讛讬讜 讗讜谞讜转 讜砖讟专讜转 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇 砖诪讜 讜讗诪专 砖诇讬 讛谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讬 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讗 注诇讬讜 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: This is the opinion of Rav and this is the opinion of Shmuel; this is the opinion of Rabba and this is the opinion of Rav Sheshet. In accordance with whose opinion does the Master hold? Rav Na岣an said to him: I know a baraita, which is the source of my opinion, as it is taught (Tosefta 9:2): In a case where there was one of the brothers who was engaging in commerce in the house, managing the family finances, and there were bills of sale and other documents circulating with his name appearing as the owner of the property or as a lender, and that brother said: The money and property are mine, as they fell to me as an inheritance from the house of the father of my mother, who is not the mother of the other brothers, it is upon him to bring proof of ownership.

讜讻谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讛讬讗 谞讜砖讗转 讜谞讜转谞转 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讛讬讜 讗讜谞讜转 讜砖讟专讜转 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇 砖诪讛 讜讗诪专讛 砖诇讬 讛谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讬 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗讘讗 讗讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讗 注诇讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

The baraita continues: And similarly, in the case of a woman, i.e., a widow, if her husband鈥檚 heirs see that she is engaging in commerce in the house with the property that had belonged to her husband, and there were bills of sale and other documents circulating with her name appearing on them as the owner, and she said: The money and property are mine alone, as they fell to me as an inheritance from the house of the father of my father or from the house of the father of my mother, and did not belong to my husband, it is upon her to bring proof. Rav Na岣an consequently holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗砖讛 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讘讬讞讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专讬 拽讗 讟专讞讗 拽诪讬 讬转诪讬 诇讗 讙讝诇讛 诪讬转诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Having quoted the baraita, the Gemara seeks to clarify it, and asks: What is the purpose of the clause of the baraita that begins: And similarly, where the halakha appears to be identical to that of the first clause? Lest you say that in the case of the woman, since the matter is laudable for her, in that people say: She is toiling on behalf of orphans; she would not steal from the orphans, and is therefore deemed credible if she says that the property in the documents that bear her name is her own, the baraita teaches us that this assumption cannot be relied upon, and she must bring proof of ownership.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讞讝讬拽 讗讘诇 讘谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 讜讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讜讻讜壮 讗讟讜 讻诇 讛谞讬 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讞讝拽讛 谞讬谞讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches: In what case is this statement, that one establishes the presumption of ownership after profiting from the property for a certain duration, said? It is said in a case of one who has mere possession of the property, which does in some cases serve as proof of ownership. But in a case of one who gives a gift, or brothers who divided their inheritance, or one who takes possession of the property of a convert who died without heirs and his property is now ownerless, as soon as one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, this is considered taking possession of the property, and effects acquisition. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all of these whom we previously said possessed the field for three years are not subject to the halakhot of taking possession of property in this manner?

讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讞讝拽讛 砖讬砖 注诪讛 讟注谞讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讜讻专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪讻专转讬 讜诇讜拽讞 讗讜诪专 诇拽讞转讬

The Gemara responds that the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to possession that is accompanied by a claim, i.e., when the possessor has a claim to counter that of the claimant, such as where the seller, i.e., the claimant, says: I did not sell, and the buyer, i.e., the possessor, says: I purchased. In that case, working and profiting from the land for three years establishes the presumption of ownership.

讗讘诇 讞讝拽讛 砖讗讬谉 注诪讛 讟注谞讛 讻讙讜谉 谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 讜讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讜讛诪讞讝讬拽 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讚诇诪拽谞讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 谞注诇 讙讚专 驻专抓 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛

But with regard to possession that does not need to be accompanied by a claim, as the prior owner concedes that the one in possession is the owner, such as a case where another person gives one a gift, or there are brothers who divided their property, or there is one who takes possession of the property of a convert who died without heirs, where the function of possessing the item is only to acquire it and not to establish the presumption of ownership, if one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, this is considered taking possession of the property.

转谞讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚讘讬 诇讜讬 谞注诇 讙讚专 驻专抓 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬

Rav Hoshaya teaches in the baraita of tractate Kiddushin that was taught in the school of Levi: If one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, if this was done in the presence of the seller, this is considered taking possession of the property. The Gemara asks: One could infer that in his presence, yes, he acquires it; but not in his presence, no, he does not acquire it. Why not? In any event he has taken possession. Rava said that this is what Rav Hoshaya is saying: If the act was performed in the seller鈥檚 presence, the seller need not say to him: Go, take possession, and thereby acquire the property. Since the buyer is performing the act in the seller鈥檚 presence, there is no need for the seller to specify that he consents to the buyer鈥檚 acquiring it.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 52

拽讘诇 诪谉 讛拽讟谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜 住讙讜诇讛 讜讗诐 诪转 讬讞讝讬专 诇讬讜专砖讬讜

If one accepted a deposit from a minor, he cannot return it to him, as a minor is unable to properly safeguard the item. Instead, he must make a safe investment [segulla] for him, and if the minor dies, he must return it to his heirs.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖讗诪专讜 讘砖注转 诪讬转转谉 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛谉 讬注砖讛 讻驻讬专讜砖谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讬注砖讛 驻讬专讜砖 诇驻讬专讜砖谉

And with regard to all these people, who said at the time of their death that the deposited item belongs to so-and-so, the bailee should act as they had explained, and if their explanation was not credible, the bailee should form an explanation of their explanation, i.e., ignore what they said.

讚讘讬转讛讜 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讻讬 拽讗 砖讻讘讛 讗诪专讛 讛谞讬 讻讬驻讬 讚诪专转讗 讜讘谞讬 讘专转讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗 诇讱 注砖讛 讻驻讬专讜砖讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 注砖讛 驻讬专讜砖 诇驻讬专讜砖讛

The Gemara relates: When the wife of Rabba bar bar 岣na was dying she said: These rings that are in my possession belong to Marta and the sons of her daughter. Rabba bar bar 岣na came before Rav to ask what he should do. Rav said to him: If she is credible in your eyes, act as she had explained, and if not, form an explanation of her explanation, i.e., ignore what she said, and as her heir, keep them for yourself.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪讬讚讗 诇讱 注砖讛 讻驻讬专讜砖讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 注砖讛 驻讬专讜砖 诇驻讬专讜砖讛

And there are those who say that this is what Rav said to him: If you assess that it is likely that the rings were deposited with her, act as she had explained, and if not, form an explanation of her explanation.

诪谉 讛拽讟谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜 住讙讜诇讛 诪讗讬 住讙讜诇讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 住驻专 转讜专讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讚讬拽诇讗 讚讗讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 转诪专讬

The baraita stated that if the bailee took a deposit from a minor, he must make a safe investment for him. The Gemara asks: What is meant by a safe investment? Rav 岣sda says: The bailee should purchase a Torah scroll for the minor. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: He should purchase a date palm, from which the minor will consume dates.

讜诇讗 诇讗讘 讘谞讻住讬 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 诇讘谉 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 讞诇拽讜 诇讗

搂 The mishna teaches: And a father does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a son鈥檚 property, and a son does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a father鈥檚 property. Rav Yosef says: Even if they separated and the son is no longer dependent on his father, the presumption of ownership still cannot be established by a father or son with regard to the other鈥檚 property. Rava says: If they separated, that is not the halakha, and the presumption of ownership can be established.

讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚驻转讬 注讘讚 专讘 驻驻讬 注讜讘讚讗 讞诇拽讜 诇讗 讻专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬砖转注讬 诇讬 专讘 讞讬讬讗 诪讛讜专诪讬讝 讗专讚砖讬讚 讚讗讬砖转注讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬注拽讘 讞诇拽讜 诇讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讞诇拽讜 诇讗 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘谉 砖讞诇拽 讜讗砖转讜 砖谞转讙专砖讛 讛专讬 讛谉 讻砖讗专 讻诇 讗讚诐

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: Rav Pappi performed an action and ruled that if they separated, that is not the halakha, in accordance with the opinion of Rava. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that Rav 岣yya, from the city of Hurmiz Ardeshid, told me that Rav A岣 bar Yaakov told him in the name of Rav Na岣an bar Yaakov: If they separated, that is not the halakha. The Gemara notes: And this is the halakha: If they separated, that is not the halakha, and the presumption of ownership can be established. This is also taught in a baraita: A son who separated himself from his father鈥檚 finances and a wife who became divorced are like all other people with regard to establishing the presumption of ownership.

讗讬转诪专 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讛讬讛 谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讛讬讜 讗讜谞讜转 讜砖讟专讜转 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇 砖诪讜 讜讗诪专 砖诇讬 讛诐 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讬 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 注诇讬讜 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 注诇 讛讗讞讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜讚讛 诇讬 讗讘讗 砖讗诐 诪转 注诇 讛讗讞讬谉 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

搂 It was stated: There was a case of one of the brothers in a family who was engaging in commerce in the house, managing the family finances after the death of their father, and there were bills of sale [onot] and other documents circulating with his name appearing as the owner of the property and as a lender, and that brother said: The money and property are mine, as they fell to me as an inheritance from the house of the father of my mother, who is not the mother of the other brothers, Rav says: It is upon him to bring proof of ownership; otherwise the property is divided equally among the brothers. And Shmuel says: It is upon the brothers to bring proof that the money or property belonged to their common father and consequently now belongs to all of them. Shmuel says: Abba, i.e., Rav, concedes to me that if that brother dies, it is upon the brothers to bring proof in order to collect money from the deceased brother鈥檚 heirs.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诇讜诐 讟注谞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诇讬转诪讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 讟注谉 诇讛讜 讗讘讜讛讜谉 讜讛讗 专讘讗 讗驻讬拽 讝讜讙讗 讚住专讘诇讗 讜住驻专讗 讚讗讙讚转讗 诪讬转诪讬 讘诇讗 专讗讬讛 讘讚讘专讬诐 讛注砖讜讬诐 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜诇讛砖讻讬专

Rav Pappa objects to Shmuel鈥檚 addendum: Do we claim on behalf of orphans anything that their father could not claim for them? But didn鈥檛 Rava remove a pair of scissors used for cutting garments and a book of aggada from orphans without requiring the prior owner who had asked the orphans to return these items to bring proof of ownership, and he would rule the same in the case of all items with regard to which it is common for them to be lent, and the one in possession has no presumption of ownership?

讻讚砖诇讞 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 讛注砖讜讬谉 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜诇讛砖讻讬专 讜讗诪专 诇拽讜讞讬谉 讛谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 拽砖讬讗

As Rav Huna bar Avin sent a ruling: If one other than the one previously established to be the owner is in possession of items that are typically lent or rented, and says: They are purchased, and that is why they are in my possession, he is not deemed credible. In this case as well, as the father of the orphans could not be awarded these documents without bringing proof, the same should be true of his orphans. Why, then, would Rav concede to Shmuel? The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘注讬住转谉 讗讘诇 讞诇讜拽讬诐 讘注讬住转谉 讗讬诪讜专 诪注讬住转讜 拽讬诪抓

Rav 岣sda says: They, i.e., Rav, taught his ruling, that the brother must bring proof that he owns the property listed in the documents that appear under his name, only when they do not divide any of their property, even with regard to their dough, i.e., they share everything, even their food. But if they divide with regard to their dough, say that this brother removed money from his dough, i.e., reduced his expenses for food, thereby amassing his own property.

专讗讬讛 讘诪讗讬 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讗讬讛 讘拽讬讜诐 讛砖讟专

With regard to the requirement that proof be brought, the Gemara asks: With what is one considered to have brought proof? Rabba says: Proof is brought with the testimony of witnesses that he purchased the property listed in the document or granted the loan with his own money or that he inherited it from his mother鈥檚 family. Rav Sheshet says: Proof is brought with the court鈥檚 ratification of the document in which his name appears.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗 专讘 讜讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 专讘讛 讜讛讗 专讘 砖砖转 诪专 讻诪讗谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讛讬讛 谞讜转谉 讜谞讜砖讗 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讛讬讜 讗讜谞讜转 讜砖讟专讜转 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇 砖诪讜 讜讗诪专 砖诇讬 讛谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讬 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讗 注诇讬讜 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: This is the opinion of Rav and this is the opinion of Shmuel; this is the opinion of Rabba and this is the opinion of Rav Sheshet. In accordance with whose opinion does the Master hold? Rav Na岣an said to him: I know a baraita, which is the source of my opinion, as it is taught (Tosefta 9:2): In a case where there was one of the brothers who was engaging in commerce in the house, managing the family finances, and there were bills of sale and other documents circulating with his name appearing as the owner of the property or as a lender, and that brother said: The money and property are mine, as they fell to me as an inheritance from the house of the father of my mother, who is not the mother of the other brothers, it is upon him to bring proof of ownership.

讜讻谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讛讬讗 谞讜砖讗转 讜谞讜转谞转 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜讛讬讜 讗讜谞讜转 讜砖讟专讜转 讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诇 砖诪讛 讜讗诪专讛 砖诇讬 讛谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讬 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗讘讗 讗讜 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗诪讗 注诇讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

The baraita continues: And similarly, in the case of a woman, i.e., a widow, if her husband鈥檚 heirs see that she is engaging in commerce in the house with the property that had belonged to her husband, and there were bills of sale and other documents circulating with her name appearing on them as the owner, and she said: The money and property are mine alone, as they fell to me as an inheritance from the house of the father of my father or from the house of the father of my mother, and did not belong to my husband, it is upon her to bring proof. Rav Na岣an consequently holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗砖讛 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讘讬讞讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专讬 拽讗 讟专讞讗 拽诪讬 讬转诪讬 诇讗 讙讝诇讛 诪讬转诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Having quoted the baraita, the Gemara seeks to clarify it, and asks: What is the purpose of the clause of the baraita that begins: And similarly, where the halakha appears to be identical to that of the first clause? Lest you say that in the case of the woman, since the matter is laudable for her, in that people say: She is toiling on behalf of orphans; she would not steal from the orphans, and is therefore deemed credible if she says that the property in the documents that bear her name is her own, the baraita teaches us that this assumption cannot be relied upon, and she must bring proof of ownership.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讞讝讬拽 讗讘诇 讘谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 讜讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讜讻讜壮 讗讟讜 讻诇 讛谞讬 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讞讝拽讛 谞讬谞讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches: In what case is this statement, that one establishes the presumption of ownership after profiting from the property for a certain duration, said? It is said in a case of one who has mere possession of the property, which does in some cases serve as proof of ownership. But in a case of one who gives a gift, or brothers who divided their inheritance, or one who takes possession of the property of a convert who died without heirs and his property is now ownerless, as soon as one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, this is considered taking possession of the property, and effects acquisition. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all of these whom we previously said possessed the field for three years are not subject to the halakhot of taking possession of property in this manner?

讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讞讝拽讛 砖讬砖 注诪讛 讟注谞讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讜讻专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪讻专转讬 讜诇讜拽讞 讗讜诪专 诇拽讞转讬

The Gemara responds that the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to possession that is accompanied by a claim, i.e., when the possessor has a claim to counter that of the claimant, such as where the seller, i.e., the claimant, says: I did not sell, and the buyer, i.e., the possessor, says: I purchased. In that case, working and profiting from the land for three years establishes the presumption of ownership.

讗讘诇 讞讝拽讛 砖讗讬谉 注诪讛 讟注谞讛 讻讙讜谉 谞讜转谉 诪转谞讛 讜讛讗讞讬谉 砖讞诇拽讜 讜讛诪讞讝讬拽 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讚诇诪拽谞讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 谞注诇 讙讚专 驻专抓 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛

But with regard to possession that does not need to be accompanied by a claim, as the prior owner concedes that the one in possession is the owner, such as a case where another person gives one a gift, or there are brothers who divided their property, or there is one who takes possession of the property of a convert who died without heirs, where the function of possessing the item is only to acquire it and not to establish the presumption of ownership, if one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, this is considered taking possession of the property.

转谞讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 讚讘讬 诇讜讬 谞注诇 讙讚专 驻专抓 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬

Rav Hoshaya teaches in the baraita of tractate Kiddushin that was taught in the school of Levi: If one locked the door of the property, or fenced it or breached its fence even a bit, if this was done in the presence of the seller, this is considered taking possession of the property. The Gemara asks: One could infer that in his presence, yes, he acquires it; but not in his presence, no, he does not acquire it. Why not? In any event he has taken possession. Rava said that this is what Rav Hoshaya is saying: If the act was performed in the seller鈥檚 presence, the seller need not say to him: Go, take possession, and thereby acquire the property. Since the buyer is performing the act in the seller鈥檚 presence, there is no need for the seller to specify that he consents to the buyer鈥檚 acquiring it.

Scroll To Top