Bava Batra 53

שלא בפניו צריך למימר ליה לך חזק וקני

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.

בעי רב מתנה היאך אמר שמואל מאי תבעי ליה לאבא השתא ומה מכר דקא יהיב ליה זוזי אי אמר ליה לך חזק וקני אין אי לא לא מתנה לא כל שכן ורב סבר מאן דיהיב מתנה בעין יפה יהיב

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.

וכמה כל שהוא כדשמואל דאמר שמואל גדר גדר והשלימו לעשרה ופרץ פרצה כדי שיכנס ויצא בה הרי זו חזקה

§ 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.

האי גדר היכי דמי אילימא דמעיקרא לא הוו סלקי לה והשתא נמי לא סלקי לה מאי עבד ואלא דמעיקרא הוו סלקי לה והשתא לא סלקי לה טובא עבד לא צריכא דמעיקרא הוו סלקי לה ברווחא והשתא קא סלקי לה בדוחקא

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.

האי פרצה היכי דמי אילימא דמעיקרא הוו עיילי בה והשתא נמי עיילי בה מאי עבד ואלא דמעיקרא לא הוו עיילי בה והשתא קא עיילי בה טובא עבד לא צריכא דמעיקרא הוו עיילי בה בדוחקא והשתא עיילי בה ברווחא

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.

אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן נתן צרור והועיל נטל צרור והועיל הרי זו חזקה מאי נתן ומאי נטל

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?

אילימא נתן צרור וסכר מיא מינה נטל צרור ואפיק מיא מינה האי מבריח ארי מנכסי חברו הוא אלא נתן צרור דצמד לה מיא נטל צרור וארוח לה מיא

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.

ואמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן שתי שדות ומצר אחד ביניהן החזיק באחת מהן לקנותה קנאה

§ 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.

לקנות אותה ואת חברתה אותה קנה חברתה לא קנה לקנות את חברתה אף אותה לא קנה

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.

בעי רבי זירא החזיק באחת מהן לקנות אותה ואת המצר ואת חברתה מהו מי אמרינן מצר דארעא חד הוא וקני או דלמא האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי תיקו

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.

בעי רבי אלעזר החזיק במצר לקנות שתיהן מהו מי אמרינן האי מצר אפסרא דארעא הוא וקני או דלמא האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי תיקו

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.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה שני בתים זה לפנים מזה החזיק בחיצון לקנותו קנאו לקנות אותו ואת הפנימי חיצון קנה פנימי לא קנה לקנות את הפנימי אף חיצון נמי לא קנה

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.

החזיק בפנימי לקנותו קנאו לקנות אותו ואת החיצון קנה שניהן לקנות את החיצון אף פנימי לא קנה

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.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה הבונה פלטרין גדולים בנכסי הגר ובא אחר והעמיד להן דלתות קנה מאי טעמא קמא לבני בעלמא הוא דאפיך

§ 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.

אמר רב דימי בר יוסף אמר רבי אלעזר המוצא פלטרין בנכסי הגר וסד בהן סיוד אחד או כיור אחד קנאן וכמה אמר רב יוסף אמה אמר רב חסדא וכנגד הפתח

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.

אמר רב עמרם האי מילתא אמר לן רב ששת ואנהרינהו עינין ממתניתא המציע מצעות בנכסי הגר קנה ואנהרינהו עינין ממתניתא מאי היא דתניא כיצד בחזקה נעל לו מנעלו או התיר לו מנעלו או שהוליך כליו אחריו לבית המרחץ והפשיטו והרחיצו סכו גרדו והלבישו והנעילו והגביהו קנאו אמר רבי שמעון לא תהא חזקה גדולה מהגבהה שהגבהה קונה בכל מקום

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.

מאי קאמר הכי קאמר הגביהו לרבו קנאו הגביה רבו לו לא קנאו אמר רבי שמעון לא תהא חזקה גדולה מהגבהה שהגבהה קונה בכל מקום

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.

אמר רב ירמיה ביראה אמר רב יהודה האי מאן

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