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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 16, 2017 | 讬状讞 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Batra 53

If one acquired property he bought or received as a gift through a kinyan 聽chazaka, what exactly does one need to do to acquire the property (so that each side can no longer change their minds)? What type of change, how much needs to be changed, would that type of change work in any situation?


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

砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬

But if the act was performed not in the seller鈥檚 presence, the seller must say to him: Go, take possession and thereby acquire the property for him to acquire it.

讘注讬 专讘 诪转谞讛 讛讬讗讱 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 转讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讗 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 诪讻专 讚拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪转谞讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讜专讘 住讘专 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诪转谞讛 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讬讛讬讘

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.

讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙讚专 讙讚专 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛 讜驻专抓 驻专爪讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讻谞住 讜讬爪讗 讘讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛

搂 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.

讛讗讬 讙讚专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讛讜讜 住诇拽讬 诇讛 讜讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诇拽讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 注讘讚 讜讗诇讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讜 住诇拽讬 诇讛 讜讛砖转讗 诇讗 住诇拽讬 诇讛 讟讜讘讗 注讘讚 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讜 住诇拽讬 诇讛 讘专讜讜讞讗 讜讛砖转讗 拽讗 住诇拽讬 诇讛 讘讚讜讞拽讗

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.

讛讗讬 驻专爪讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讜 注讬讬诇讬 讘讛 讜讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 注讬讬诇讬 讘讛 诪讗讬 注讘讚 讜讗诇讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讛讜讜 注讬讬诇讬 讘讛 讜讛砖转讗 拽讗 注讬讬诇讬 讘讛 讟讜讘讗 注讘讚 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讜 注讬讬诇讬 讘讛 讘讚讜讞拽讗 讜讛砖转讗 注讬讬诇讬 讘讛 讘专讜讜讞讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞转谉 爪专讜专 讜讛讜注讬诇 谞讟诇 爪专讜专 讜讛讜注讬诇 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛 诪讗讬 谞转谉 讜诪讗讬 谞讟诇

Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 谞转谉 爪专讜专 讜住讻专 诪讬讗 诪讬谞讛 谞讟诇 爪专讜专 讜讗驻讬拽 诪讬讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 诪讘专讬讞 讗专讬 诪谞讻住讬 讞讘专讜 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 谞转谉 爪专讜专 讚爪诪讚 诇讛 诪讬讗 谞讟诇 爪专讜专 讜讗专讜讞 诇讛 诪讬讗

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鈥檚 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖转讬 砖讚讜转 讜诪爪专 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 诇拽谞讜转讛 拽谞讗讛

搂 The Gemara cites another statement of the same amora with regard to taking possession. And Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诇拽谞讜转 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讞讘专转讛 讗讜转讛 拽谞讛 讞讘专转讛 诇讗 拽谞讛 诇拽谞讜转 讗转 讞讘专转讛 讗祝 讗讜转讛 诇讗 拽谞讛

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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 诇拽谞讜转 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讛诪爪专 讜讗转 讞讘专转讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪专 讚讗专注讗 讞讚 讛讜讗 讜拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讞讝讬拽 讘诪爪专 诇拽谞讜转 砖转讬讛谉 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讗讬 诪爪专 讗驻住专讗 讚讗专注讗 讛讜讗 讜拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 转讬拽讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讝讛 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讛 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讞讬爪讜谉 诇拽谞讜转讜 拽谞讗讜 诇拽谞讜转 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讞讬爪讜谉 拽谞讛 驻谞讬诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛 诇拽谞讜转 讗转 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讗祝 讞讬爪讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛

Similarly, Rav Na岣an 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.

讛讞讝讬拽 讘驻谞讬诪讬 诇拽谞讜转讜 拽谞讗讜 诇拽谞讜转 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 拽谞讛 砖谞讬讛谉 诇拽谞讜转 讗转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讗祝 驻谞讬诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讘讜谞讛 驻诇讟专讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛注诪讬讚 诇讛谉 讚诇转讜转 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽诪讗 诇讘谞讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗驻讬讱

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of taking possession of ownerless property. Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜爪讗 驻诇讟专讬谉 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讜住讚 讘讛谉 住讬讜讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 讻讬讜专 讗讞讚 拽谞讗谉 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讻谞讙讚 讛驻转讞

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 岣sda said: And he acquires it in this manner only if it was plastered or tiled opposite the entrance, where it can be easily seen.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专 诇谉 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗谞讛专讬谞讛讜 注讬谞讬谉 诪诪转谞讬转讗 讛诪爪讬注 诪爪注讜转 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 拽谞讛 讜讗谞讛专讬谞讛讜 注讬谞讬谉 诪诪转谞讬转讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讘讞讝拽讛 谞注诇 诇讜 诪谞注诇讜 讗讜 讛转讬专 诇讜 诪谞注诇讜 讗讜 砖讛讜诇讬讱 讻诇讬讜 讗讞专讬讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讛驻砖讬讟讜 讜讛专讞讬爪讜 住讻讜 讙专讚讜 讜讛诇讘讬砖讜 讜讛谞注讬诇讜 讜讛讙讘讬讛讜 拽谞讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 转讛讗 讞讝拽讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛讙讘讛讛 砖讛讙讘讛讛 拽讜谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讙讘讬讛讜 诇专讘讜 拽谞讗讜 讛讙讘讬讛 专讘讜 诇讜 诇讗 拽谞讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 转讛讗 讞讝拽讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛讙讘讛讛 砖讛讙讘讛讛 拽讜谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘讬专讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉

Rav Yirmeya Bira鈥檃 says that Rav Yehuda says: With regard to this one

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 53

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 53

砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬

But if the act was performed not in the seller鈥檚 presence, the seller must say to him: Go, take possession and thereby acquire the property for him to acquire it.

讘注讬 专讘 诪转谞讛 讛讬讗讱 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 转讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讗 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 诪讻专 讚拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讱 讞讝拽 讜拽谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪转谞讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讜专讘 住讘专 诪讗谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诪转谞讛 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讬讛讬讘

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.

讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙讚专 讙讚专 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛 讜驻专抓 驻专爪讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讻谞住 讜讬爪讗 讘讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛

搂 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.

讛讗讬 讙讚专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讛讜讜 住诇拽讬 诇讛 讜讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诇拽讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 注讘讚 讜讗诇讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讜 住诇拽讬 诇讛 讜讛砖转讗 诇讗 住诇拽讬 诇讛 讟讜讘讗 注讘讚 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讜 住诇拽讬 诇讛 讘专讜讜讞讗 讜讛砖转讗 拽讗 住诇拽讬 诇讛 讘讚讜讞拽讗

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.

讛讗讬 驻专爪讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讜 注讬讬诇讬 讘讛 讜讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 注讬讬诇讬 讘讛 诪讗讬 注讘讚 讜讗诇讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讛讜讜 注讬讬诇讬 讘讛 讜讛砖转讗 拽讗 注讬讬诇讬 讘讛 讟讜讘讗 注讘讚 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讜 注讬讬诇讬 讘讛 讘讚讜讞拽讗 讜讛砖转讗 注讬讬诇讬 讘讛 讘专讜讜讞讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞转谉 爪专讜专 讜讛讜注讬诇 谞讟诇 爪专讜专 讜讛讜注讬诇 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛 诪讗讬 谞转谉 讜诪讗讬 谞讟诇

Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 谞转谉 爪专讜专 讜住讻专 诪讬讗 诪讬谞讛 谞讟诇 爪专讜专 讜讗驻讬拽 诪讬讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 诪讘专讬讞 讗专讬 诪谞讻住讬 讞讘专讜 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 谞转谉 爪专讜专 讚爪诪讚 诇讛 诪讬讗 谞讟诇 爪专讜专 讜讗专讜讞 诇讛 诪讬讗

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鈥檚 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖转讬 砖讚讜转 讜诪爪专 讗讞讚 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 诇拽谞讜转讛 拽谞讗讛

搂 The Gemara cites another statement of the same amora with regard to taking possession. And Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诇拽谞讜转 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讞讘专转讛 讗讜转讛 拽谞讛 讞讘专转讛 诇讗 拽谞讛 诇拽谞讜转 讗转 讞讘专转讛 讗祝 讗讜转讛 诇讗 拽谞讛

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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 诇拽谞讜转 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讛诪爪专 讜讗转 讞讘专转讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪专 讚讗专注讗 讞讚 讛讜讗 讜拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 转讬拽讜

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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讞讝讬拽 讘诪爪专 诇拽谞讜转 砖转讬讛谉 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讗讬 诪爪专 讗驻住专讗 讚讗专注讗 讛讜讗 讜拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 转讬拽讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讝讛 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讛 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讞讬爪讜谉 诇拽谞讜转讜 拽谞讗讜 诇拽谞讜转 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讞讬爪讜谉 拽谞讛 驻谞讬诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛 诇拽谞讜转 讗转 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讗祝 讞讬爪讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛

Similarly, Rav Na岣an 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.

讛讞讝讬拽 讘驻谞讬诪讬 诇拽谞讜转讜 拽谞讗讜 诇拽谞讜转 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 拽谞讛 砖谞讬讛谉 诇拽谞讜转 讗转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讗祝 驻谞讬诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讘讜谞讛 驻诇讟专讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讛注诪讬讚 诇讛谉 讚诇转讜转 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽诪讗 诇讘谞讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗驻讬讱

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of taking possession of ownerless property. Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜爪讗 驻诇讟专讬谉 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讜住讚 讘讛谉 住讬讜讚 讗讞讚 讗讜 讻讬讜专 讗讞讚 拽谞讗谉 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讻谞讙讚 讛驻转讞

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 岣sda said: And he acquires it in this manner only if it was plastered or tiled opposite the entrance, where it can be easily seen.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专 诇谉 专讘 砖砖转 讜讗谞讛专讬谞讛讜 注讬谞讬谉 诪诪转谞讬转讗 讛诪爪讬注 诪爪注讜转 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 拽谞讛 讜讗谞讛专讬谞讛讜 注讬谞讬谉 诪诪转谞讬转讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讘讞讝拽讛 谞注诇 诇讜 诪谞注诇讜 讗讜 讛转讬专 诇讜 诪谞注诇讜 讗讜 砖讛讜诇讬讱 讻诇讬讜 讗讞专讬讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讛驻砖讬讟讜 讜讛专讞讬爪讜 住讻讜 讙专讚讜 讜讛诇讘讬砖讜 讜讛谞注讬诇讜 讜讛讙讘讬讛讜 拽谞讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 转讛讗 讞讝拽讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛讙讘讛讛 砖讛讙讘讛讛 拽讜谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讙讘讬讛讜 诇专讘讜 拽谞讗讜 讛讙讘讬讛 专讘讜 诇讜 诇讗 拽谞讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 转讛讗 讞讝拽讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛讙讘讛讛 砖讛讙讘讛讛 拽讜谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘讬专讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉

Rav Yirmeya Bira鈥檃 says that Rav Yehuda says: With regard to this one

Scroll To Top