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 53
שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו – צָרִיךְ לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנִי״.
But if the act was performed not in the seller’s presence, the seller must say to him: Go, take possession and thereby acquire the property for him to acquire it.
בָּעֵי רַב: מַתָּנָה – הֵיאַךְ? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַאי תִּבְעֵי לֵיהּ לְאַבָּא? הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה מֶכֶר, דְּקָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ זוּזֵי, אִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנִי״ – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא; מַתָּנָה, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! וְרַב סָבַר: מַאן דְּיָהֵיב מַתָּנָה, בְּעַיִן יָפָה יָהֵיב.
Rav raises a dilemma: How does one acquire a gift, i.e., is it necessary for the giver to say: Go, take possession and thereby acquire? Shmuel said: What dilemma is raised to Abba, i.e., Rav? Now one could say the following: And what is the halakha with regard to a sale, where the buyer is giving money to the seller? If the seller says to the buyer: Go, take possession and thereby acquire the property, the acquisition does take effect, but if he did not say this, it does not. Therefore, with regard to a gift, where no money is given to the seller, is it not all the more so reasonable that the acquisition not take effect without a clear directive from the seller? The Gemara answers: And Rav holds that it is possible to say that one who gives a gift gives it generously, and would allow the acquisition even absent a clear directive.
וְכַמָּה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא? כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל – דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: גָּדַר גָּדֵר וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה, וּפָרַץ פִּרְצָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס וְיֵצֵא בָּהּ – הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה.
§ The mishna teaches that taking possession can be performed by building a fence or breaching a fence even a bit. The Gemara clarifies: And how much is the measure of a bit? It is in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: If one had previously built a fence, and now completed it to a height of ten handbreadths, which is the height of a halakhically significant barrier; or similarly, if one had previously breached a breach, and now expanded it in order that it be large enough that a person can enter and exit through it, this is considered taking possession.
הַאי גָּדֵר הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא הֲווֹ סָלְקִי לַהּ, וְהַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי לָא סָלְקִי לַהּ – מַאי עֲבַד? וְאֶלָּא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ סָלְקִי לַהּ, וְהַשְׁתָּא לָא סָלְקִי לַהּ – טוּבָא עֲבַד! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ סָלְקִי לַהּ בְּרַוְוחָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא קָא סָלְקִי לַהּ בְּדוּחְקָא.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this fence? If we say that initially one could not climb over it to enter the field, and now too one still could not climb over it, what did he accomplish? Nothing has changed through his completing the height of the fence. And alternatively, if it was such that initially one could climb over it to enter the field, and now one could not climb over it, he has accomplished a great deal, and the mishna should not have referred to this addition as: A bit. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this ruling if the height of the fence was such that initially one could climb over it with ease, and now one could climb over it only with effort.
הַאי פִּרְצָה – הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ עָיְילִי בַּהּ, וְהַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי עָיְילִי בַּהּ – מַאי עֲבַד? וְאֶלָּא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא הֲווֹ עָיְילִי בַּהּ, וְהַשְׁתָּא קָא עָיְילִי בַּהּ – טוּבָא עֲבַד! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ עָיְילִי בַּהּ בְּדוּחְקָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא עָיְילִי בַּהּ בְּרַוְוחָא.
The Gemara similarly asks: What are the circumstances of this breach? If we say that initially, one could enter the field through it, and now too one could enter the field through it, what did he accomplish? Nothing has changed through his expanding the breach? And alternatively, if it was such that initially one could not enter the field through it, and now one could enter the field through it, he has accomplished a great deal, and the mishna should not have referred to this as: A bit. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this ruling if the size of the breach was such that initially one could enter the field through it with effort, and now one could enter the field through it with ease.
אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתָן צְרוֹר וְהוֹעִיל, נָטַל צְרוֹר וְהוֹעִיל – הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. מַאי ״נָתַן״ וּמַאי ״נָטַל״?
Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one placed a stone and it helps to serve some objective, or if one removed a stone and it helps to serve some objective, this act is considered taking possession. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of placed, and what is the meaning of removed?
אִילֵּימָא נָתַן צְרוֹר – וּסְכַר מַיָּא מִינַּהּ, נָטַל צְרוֹר – וְאַפֵּיק מַיָּא מִינַּהּ; הַאי מַבְרִיחַ אֲרִי מִנִּכְסֵי חֲבֵרוֹ הוּא! אֶלָּא נָתַן צְרוֹר – דְּצַמֵּד לַהּ מַיָּא, נָטַל צְרוֹר – וְאַרְוַח לַהּ מַיָּא.
If we say that he placed a stone in the fence and stopped the water from flooding the field, or he removed a stone from the fence and thereby fashioned an opening that released water that had been flooding the field, this is analogous to one who chases away a lion from another’s property. In other words, these acts prevent damage to the field, which one is obligated to prevent even in the case of the property of another, and accordingly, they do not constitute a demonstration of ownership. Rather, it means that he placed a stone that connected water to the field and irrigated it, or he removed a stone and enhanced the flow of water to it.
וְאָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת וּמֶצֶר אֶחָד בֵּינֵיהֶן, הֶחְזִיק בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן לִקְנוֹתָהּ – קְנָאָהּ.
§ The Gemara cites another statement of the same amora with regard to taking possession. And Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If there were two fields with one boundary between them, and one took possession of one of the fields in order to acquire it, he has acquired it.
לִקְנוֹת אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת חֲבֶרְתָּהּ – אוֹתָהּ קָנָה, חֲבֶרְתָּהּ לֹא קָנָה. לִקְנוֹת אֶת חֲבֶרְתָּהּ – אַף אוֹתָהּ לֹא קָנָה.
If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the other field, he has acquired the first field, but has not acquired the other field, since the fields are separated by a boundary. If he took possession of one field in order to acquire only the other field, he has not acquired even that field of which he took possession, since his intention when taking possession was to acquire the other field, and one does not acquire an item without the intention to do so.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הֶחְזִיק בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן לִקְנוֹת אוֹתָהּ, וְאֶת הַמֶּצֶר, וְאֶת חֲבֶרְתָּהּ – מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: מֶצֶר דְּאַרְעָא חַד הוּא, וְקָנֵי; אוֹ דִּלְמָא הַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי? תֵּיקוּ.
Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if one took possession of one of the fields in order to acquire it, and the boundary, and the other field, all together? Do we say that the boundary of the land is one, i.e., these two fields are joined by means of their common boundary, and therefore he has acquired all of them? Or perhaps this field stands alone and that field stands alone. The Gemara notes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הֶחְזִיק בַּמֶּצֶר לִקְנוֹת שְׁתֵּיהֶן, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן הַאי מֶצֶר – אַפְסֵרָא דְאַרְעָא הוּא, וְקָנֵי; אוֹ דִּלְמָא הַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי? תֵּיקוּ.
Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if one took possession of the boundary between the two fields in order to acquire both of the fields? Do we say that the legal status of this boundary is that of the halter of the land and he acquires the fields, just as one acquires an animal through the acquisition of its halter? Or perhaps this field stands alone and that field stands alone, as the boundary is not connected to the field in the same manner that a halter is connected to an animal. The Gemara notes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: שְׁנֵי בָתִּים זֶה לִפְנִים מִזֶּה, הֶחְזִיק בַּחִיצוֹן לִקְנוֹתוֹ – קְנָאוֹ. לִקְנוֹת אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת הַפְּנִימִי – חִיצוֹן קָנָה, פְּנִימִי לֹא קָנָה. לִקְנוֹת אֶת הַפְּנִימִי – אַף חִיצוֹן נָמֵי לֹא קָנָה.
Similarly, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: If there were two houses in a courtyard, this one situated within the courtyard relative to that one, and one took possession of the outer house in order to acquire it, he has acquired it. If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the inner house, he has acquired the outer house, but has not acquired the inner house. If he took possession of the outer house in order to acquire the inner house alone, he has not acquired even the outer house.
הֶחְזִיק בַּפְּנִימִי לִקְנוֹתוֹ – קְנָאוֹ. לִקְנוֹת אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת הַחִיצוֹן – קָנָה שְׁנֵיהֶן. לִקְנוֹת אֶת הַחִיצוֹן – אַף פְּנִימִי לֹא קָנָה.
If he took possession of the inner house in order to acquire it, he has acquired it. If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the outer house, he has acquired both of them. Since the residents of the inner house possess the right to pass through the outer house in order to enter and exit the courtyard, the outer house is viewed as an extension of the inner house. If he took possession of the inner house in order to acquire only the outer house, he has not acquired even the inner house, since he did not take possession of the property that he intended to acquire.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַבּוֹנֶה פַּלְטֵרִין גְּדוֹלִים בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֶעֱמִיד לָהֶן דְּלָתוֹת – קָנָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? קַמָּא – לִבְנֵי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דַּאֲפֵיךְ.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of taking possession of ownerless property. Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who builds large palaces [palterin] on the property of a convert who died without heirs, and another came and placed doors upon them, the latter has acquired the property. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? The first, i.e., the one who built the palaces, merely turned over bricks, i.e., building an incomplete house is not sufficient to take possession of the property.
אָמַר רַב דִּימִי בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַמּוֹצֵא פַּלְטֵרִין בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, וְסָד בָּהֶן סִיּוּד אֶחָד אוֹ כִּיּוּר אֶחָד – קְנָאָן. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַמָּה. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: וּכְנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח.
Rav Dimi bar Yosef says that Rabbi Elazar says: One who finds palaces built on the property of a convert who died without heirs and plastered them with one application of plaster or tiled them with one tile, has acquired them. The Gemara asks: And how much, i.e., what is the minimum area that must be plastered or tiled? Rav Yosef said: A square cubit. Rav Ḥisda said: And he acquires it in this manner only if it was plastered or tiled opposite the entrance, where it can be easily seen.
אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: הַאי מִילְּתָא אֲמַר לַן רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, וְאַנְהֲרִינְהוּ עַיְנִין מִמַּתְנִיתָא: הַמַּצִּיעַ מַצָּעוֹת בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר – קָנָה. ״וְאַנְהֲרִינְהוּ עַיְנִין מִמַּתְנִיתָא״ – מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: כֵּיצַד בַּחֲזָקָה? נָעַל לוֹ מִנְעָלוֹ, אוֹ הִתִּיר לוֹ מִנְעָלוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהוֹלִיךְ כֵּלָיו אַחֲרָיו לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, וְהִפְשִׁיטוֹ, וְהִרְחִיצוֹ, סָכוֹ, גֵּרְדוֹ, וְהִלְבִּישׁוֹ, וְהִנְעִילוֹ, וְהִגְבִּיהוֹ – קְנָאוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא תְּהֵא חֲזָקָה גְּדוֹלָה מֵהַגְבָּהָה – שֶׁהַגְבָּהָה קוֹנָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם.
Rav Amram said: Rav Sheshet said this statement to us, and he enlightened our eyes from a baraita that alludes to the same matter. He said: One who spreads out mattresses on the property of a convert who died without heirs has acquired it. And that which I said, that he enlightened our eyes from a baraita, what is it? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kiddushin 1:5): How does one acquire a Canaanite slave through taking possession? If the slave placed one’s shoe for him, or untied his shoe for him, or if it occurred that he carried his garments after him to the bathhouse, or undresses him, or bathes him, or anoints him, or scrubs the oil off him, or dresses him, or puts on his shoes, or lifts him, one acquires the slave. Rabbi Shimon said: The acquisition generated by taking possession should not be considered greater than the acquisition generated by lifting, as lifting acquires property in any situation.
מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: הִגְבִּיהוֹ לְרַבּוֹ – קְנָאוֹ, הִגְבִּיהַּ רַבּוֹ לוֹ – לֹא קְנָאוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא תְּהֵא חֲזָקָה גְּדוֹלָה מֵהַגְבָּהָה – שֶׁהַגְבָּהָה קוֹנָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם.
With regard to this last statement, the Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Shimon saying here, as the first tanna also said that a slave can be acquired by lifting? The Gemara explains: This is what he is saying: The first tanna holds that if he lifted his master, the master acquires him, as he is performing labor for the master, but if his master lifted him, the master does not acquire him, as the slave has not performed labor on his behalf. With regard to this halakha, Rabbi Shimon said: Acquisition generated through taking possession should not be greater than acquisition generated through lifting, as lifting acquires property in any situation. Consequently, one can acquire a slave even by lifting him.
אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בִּירָאָה אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן
Rav Yirmeya Bira’a says that Rav Yehuda says: With regard to this one
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 started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
Philadelphia, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
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
Ontario, Canada
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
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
Bava Batra 53
שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו – צָרִיךְ לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנִי״.
But if the act was performed not in the seller’s presence, the seller must say to him: Go, take possession and thereby acquire the property for him to acquire it.
בָּעֵי רַב: מַתָּנָה – הֵיאַךְ? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַאי תִּבְעֵי לֵיהּ לְאַבָּא? הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה מֶכֶר, דְּקָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ זוּזֵי, אִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנִי״ – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא; מַתָּנָה, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! וְרַב סָבַר: מַאן דְּיָהֵיב מַתָּנָה, בְּעַיִן יָפָה יָהֵיב.
Rav raises a dilemma: How does one acquire a gift, i.e., is it necessary for the giver to say: Go, take possession and thereby acquire? Shmuel said: What dilemma is raised to Abba, i.e., Rav? Now one could say the following: And what is the halakha with regard to a sale, where the buyer is giving money to the seller? If the seller says to the buyer: Go, take possession and thereby acquire the property, the acquisition does take effect, but if he did not say this, it does not. Therefore, with regard to a gift, where no money is given to the seller, is it not all the more so reasonable that the acquisition not take effect without a clear directive from the seller? The Gemara answers: And Rav holds that it is possible to say that one who gives a gift gives it generously, and would allow the acquisition even absent a clear directive.
וְכַמָּה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא? כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל – דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: גָּדַר גָּדֵר וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה, וּפָרַץ פִּרְצָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס וְיֵצֵא בָּהּ – הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה.
§ The mishna teaches that taking possession can be performed by building a fence or breaching a fence even a bit. The Gemara clarifies: And how much is the measure of a bit? It is in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: If one had previously built a fence, and now completed it to a height of ten handbreadths, which is the height of a halakhically significant barrier; or similarly, if one had previously breached a breach, and now expanded it in order that it be large enough that a person can enter and exit through it, this is considered taking possession.
הַאי גָּדֵר הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא הֲווֹ סָלְקִי לַהּ, וְהַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי לָא סָלְקִי לַהּ – מַאי עֲבַד? וְאֶלָּא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ סָלְקִי לַהּ, וְהַשְׁתָּא לָא סָלְקִי לַהּ – טוּבָא עֲבַד! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ סָלְקִי לַהּ בְּרַוְוחָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא קָא סָלְקִי לַהּ בְּדוּחְקָא.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this fence? If we say that initially one could not climb over it to enter the field, and now too one still could not climb over it, what did he accomplish? Nothing has changed through his completing the height of the fence. And alternatively, if it was such that initially one could climb over it to enter the field, and now one could not climb over it, he has accomplished a great deal, and the mishna should not have referred to this addition as: A bit. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this ruling if the height of the fence was such that initially one could climb over it with ease, and now one could climb over it only with effort.
הַאי פִּרְצָה – הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ עָיְילִי בַּהּ, וְהַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי עָיְילִי בַּהּ – מַאי עֲבַד? וְאֶלָּא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא הֲווֹ עָיְילִי בַּהּ, וְהַשְׁתָּא קָא עָיְילִי בַּהּ – טוּבָא עֲבַד! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ עָיְילִי בַּהּ בְּדוּחְקָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא עָיְילִי בַּהּ בְּרַוְוחָא.
The Gemara similarly asks: What are the circumstances of this breach? If we say that initially, one could enter the field through it, and now too one could enter the field through it, what did he accomplish? Nothing has changed through his expanding the breach? And alternatively, if it was such that initially one could not enter the field through it, and now one could enter the field through it, he has accomplished a great deal, and the mishna should not have referred to this as: A bit. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this ruling if the size of the breach was such that initially one could enter the field through it with effort, and now one could enter the field through it with ease.
אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נָתָן צְרוֹר וְהוֹעִיל, נָטַל צְרוֹר וְהוֹעִיל – הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. מַאי ״נָתַן״ וּמַאי ״נָטַל״?
Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one placed a stone and it helps to serve some objective, or if one removed a stone and it helps to serve some objective, this act is considered taking possession. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of placed, and what is the meaning of removed?
אִילֵּימָא נָתַן צְרוֹר – וּסְכַר מַיָּא מִינַּהּ, נָטַל צְרוֹר – וְאַפֵּיק מַיָּא מִינַּהּ; הַאי מַבְרִיחַ אֲרִי מִנִּכְסֵי חֲבֵרוֹ הוּא! אֶלָּא נָתַן צְרוֹר – דְּצַמֵּד לַהּ מַיָּא, נָטַל צְרוֹר – וְאַרְוַח לַהּ מַיָּא.
If we say that he placed a stone in the fence and stopped the water from flooding the field, or he removed a stone from the fence and thereby fashioned an opening that released water that had been flooding the field, this is analogous to one who chases away a lion from another’s property. In other words, these acts prevent damage to the field, which one is obligated to prevent even in the case of the property of another, and accordingly, they do not constitute a demonstration of ownership. Rather, it means that he placed a stone that connected water to the field and irrigated it, or he removed a stone and enhanced the flow of water to it.
וְאָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת וּמֶצֶר אֶחָד בֵּינֵיהֶן, הֶחְזִיק בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן לִקְנוֹתָהּ – קְנָאָהּ.
§ The Gemara cites another statement of the same amora with regard to taking possession. And Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If there were two fields with one boundary between them, and one took possession of one of the fields in order to acquire it, he has acquired it.
לִקְנוֹת אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת חֲבֶרְתָּהּ – אוֹתָהּ קָנָה, חֲבֶרְתָּהּ לֹא קָנָה. לִקְנוֹת אֶת חֲבֶרְתָּהּ – אַף אוֹתָהּ לֹא קָנָה.
If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the other field, he has acquired the first field, but has not acquired the other field, since the fields are separated by a boundary. If he took possession of one field in order to acquire only the other field, he has not acquired even that field of which he took possession, since his intention when taking possession was to acquire the other field, and one does not acquire an item without the intention to do so.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הֶחְזִיק בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן לִקְנוֹת אוֹתָהּ, וְאֶת הַמֶּצֶר, וְאֶת חֲבֶרְתָּהּ – מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: מֶצֶר דְּאַרְעָא חַד הוּא, וְקָנֵי; אוֹ דִּלְמָא הַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי? תֵּיקוּ.
Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if one took possession of one of the fields in order to acquire it, and the boundary, and the other field, all together? Do we say that the boundary of the land is one, i.e., these two fields are joined by means of their common boundary, and therefore he has acquired all of them? Or perhaps this field stands alone and that field stands alone. The Gemara notes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הֶחְזִיק בַּמֶּצֶר לִקְנוֹת שְׁתֵּיהֶן, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן הַאי מֶצֶר – אַפְסֵרָא דְאַרְעָא הוּא, וְקָנֵי; אוֹ דִּלְמָא הַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי? תֵּיקוּ.
Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if one took possession of the boundary between the two fields in order to acquire both of the fields? Do we say that the legal status of this boundary is that of the halter of the land and he acquires the fields, just as one acquires an animal through the acquisition of its halter? Or perhaps this field stands alone and that field stands alone, as the boundary is not connected to the field in the same manner that a halter is connected to an animal. The Gemara notes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: שְׁנֵי בָתִּים זֶה לִפְנִים מִזֶּה, הֶחְזִיק בַּחִיצוֹן לִקְנוֹתוֹ – קְנָאוֹ. לִקְנוֹת אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת הַפְּנִימִי – חִיצוֹן קָנָה, פְּנִימִי לֹא קָנָה. לִקְנוֹת אֶת הַפְּנִימִי – אַף חִיצוֹן נָמֵי לֹא קָנָה.
Similarly, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: If there were two houses in a courtyard, this one situated within the courtyard relative to that one, and one took possession of the outer house in order to acquire it, he has acquired it. If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the inner house, he has acquired the outer house, but has not acquired the inner house. If he took possession of the outer house in order to acquire the inner house alone, he has not acquired even the outer house.
הֶחְזִיק בַּפְּנִימִי לִקְנוֹתוֹ – קְנָאוֹ. לִקְנוֹת אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת הַחִיצוֹן – קָנָה שְׁנֵיהֶן. לִקְנוֹת אֶת הַחִיצוֹן – אַף פְּנִימִי לֹא קָנָה.
If he took possession of the inner house in order to acquire it, he has acquired it. If his intention was to acquire it and also acquire the outer house, he has acquired both of them. Since the residents of the inner house possess the right to pass through the outer house in order to enter and exit the courtyard, the outer house is viewed as an extension of the inner house. If he took possession of the inner house in order to acquire only the outer house, he has not acquired even the inner house, since he did not take possession of the property that he intended to acquire.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַבּוֹנֶה פַּלְטֵרִין גְּדוֹלִים בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֶעֱמִיד לָהֶן דְּלָתוֹת – קָנָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? קַמָּא – לִבְנֵי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דַּאֲפֵיךְ.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of taking possession of ownerless property. Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to one who builds large palaces [palterin] on the property of a convert who died without heirs, and another came and placed doors upon them, the latter has acquired the property. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? The first, i.e., the one who built the palaces, merely turned over bricks, i.e., building an incomplete house is not sufficient to take possession of the property.
אָמַר רַב דִּימִי בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַמּוֹצֵא פַּלְטֵרִין בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, וְסָד בָּהֶן סִיּוּד אֶחָד אוֹ כִּיּוּר אֶחָד – קְנָאָן. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַמָּה. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: וּכְנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח.
Rav Dimi bar Yosef says that Rabbi Elazar says: One who finds palaces built on the property of a convert who died without heirs and plastered them with one application of plaster or tiled them with one tile, has acquired them. The Gemara asks: And how much, i.e., what is the minimum area that must be plastered or tiled? Rav Yosef said: A square cubit. Rav Ḥisda said: And he acquires it in this manner only if it was plastered or tiled opposite the entrance, where it can be easily seen.
אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: הַאי מִילְּתָא אֲמַר לַן רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, וְאַנְהֲרִינְהוּ עַיְנִין מִמַּתְנִיתָא: הַמַּצִּיעַ מַצָּעוֹת בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר – קָנָה. ״וְאַנְהֲרִינְהוּ עַיְנִין מִמַּתְנִיתָא״ – מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: כֵּיצַד בַּחֲזָקָה? נָעַל לוֹ מִנְעָלוֹ, אוֹ הִתִּיר לוֹ מִנְעָלוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהוֹלִיךְ כֵּלָיו אַחֲרָיו לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, וְהִפְשִׁיטוֹ, וְהִרְחִיצוֹ, סָכוֹ, גֵּרְדוֹ, וְהִלְבִּישׁוֹ, וְהִנְעִילוֹ, וְהִגְבִּיהוֹ – קְנָאוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא תְּהֵא חֲזָקָה גְּדוֹלָה מֵהַגְבָּהָה – שֶׁהַגְבָּהָה קוֹנָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם.
Rav Amram said: Rav Sheshet said this statement to us, and he enlightened our eyes from a baraita that alludes to the same matter. He said: One who spreads out mattresses on the property of a convert who died without heirs has acquired it. And that which I said, that he enlightened our eyes from a baraita, what is it? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kiddushin 1:5): How does one acquire a Canaanite slave through taking possession? If the slave placed one’s shoe for him, or untied his shoe for him, or if it occurred that he carried his garments after him to the bathhouse, or undresses him, or bathes him, or anoints him, or scrubs the oil off him, or dresses him, or puts on his shoes, or lifts him, one acquires the slave. Rabbi Shimon said: The acquisition generated by taking possession should not be considered greater than the acquisition generated by lifting, as lifting acquires property in any situation.
מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: הִגְבִּיהוֹ לְרַבּוֹ – קְנָאוֹ, הִגְבִּיהַּ רַבּוֹ לוֹ – לֹא קְנָאוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא תְּהֵא חֲזָקָה גְּדוֹלָה מֵהַגְבָּהָה – שֶׁהַגְבָּהָה קוֹנָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם.
With regard to this last statement, the Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Shimon saying here, as the first tanna also said that a slave can be acquired by lifting? The Gemara explains: This is what he is saying: The first tanna holds that if he lifted his master, the master acquires him, as he is performing labor for the master, but if his master lifted him, the master does not acquire him, as the slave has not performed labor on his behalf. With regard to this halakha, Rabbi Shimon said: Acquisition generated through taking possession should not be greater than acquisition generated through lifting, as lifting acquires property in any situation. Consequently, one can acquire a slave even by lifting him.
אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בִּירָאָה אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן
Rav Yirmeya Bira’a says that Rav Yehuda says: With regard to this one
