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.
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.
Bava Batra 54
דִּשְׁדָא לִיפְתָּא בֵּי פִילֵי דְּאַרְעָא דְגֵר – לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? בְּעִידָּנָא דִּשְׁדָא – לָא הָוֵי שְׁבָחָא, הַשְׁתָּא דְּקָא שָׁבַח – מִמֵּילָא קָא שָׁבַח.
who threw turnip seeds in the crevices [filei] of the land of a convert who died without heirs, it is not sufficient to take possession. What is the reason for this? As at the time that he threw the seeds there was no enhancement to the value of the field. Now that the turnips have grown and the value of the field is enhanced, it is enhanced by itself.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּפָשַׁח דִּיקְלָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְּדִיקְלָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְחֵיוָתָא – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שְׁקַל מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וּמֵהַאי גִּיסָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְּדִיקְלָא. כּוֹלָּא מֵחַד גִּיסָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְחֵיוָתָא.
The Gemara records a series of rulings with regard to taking possession of land. Shmuel says: With regard to this one who cuts the branches of a palm tree, if he had in mind the acquisition of the palm tree, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the benefit of the animals, to feed his animals the branches, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he took branches from this side and from that side, he had in mind the acquisition of the palm tree, as this assists the growth of the tree; but if the branches that he took were all from one side, he had in mind the benefit of the animals.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּזָכֵי זִיכְיָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְצִיבֵי – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שְׁקַל רַבְרְבֵי וְזוּטְרֵי – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא, שְׁקַל רַבְרְבֵי וּשְׁבַק זוּטְרֵי – אַדַּעְתָּא דְצִיבֵי.
And Shmuel says with regard to this one who clears [dezakkei zikheya] a field of trees, if he had in mind the improvement of the field, to prepare it for plowing, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the collection of the wood, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he took large and small pieces of wood, he had in mind the improvement of the field; however, if he took the large pieces of wood but left the small ones, he had in mind the collection of the wood.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּאתָקֵיל תִּיקְלָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְבֵי דָרֵי – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שְׁקַל מוּלְיָא וּשְׁדָא בְּנַצָּא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא. מוּלְיָא בְּמוּלְיָא וְנַצָּא בְּנַצָּא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְבֵי דָרֵי.
And Shmuel says with regard to this one who removes protuberances and levels the ground, if he had in mind the improvement of the field, to prepare it for plowing, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the conversion of the field into a threshing floor, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he took a mound and threw it in a ditch, thereby leveling both areas, he had in mind the improvement of the field; but if he leveled the ground with a mound in the place of a mound and a ditch in the place of a ditch, expanding each area but leaving the field as a whole uneven, he had in mind the conversion of the field into a threshing floor.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּפָתַח מַיָּא בְּאַרְעָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְכַוְורֵי – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? פָּתַח תְּרֵי בָבֵי, חַד מְעַיֵּיל וְחַד מַפֵּיק – אַדַּעְתָּא דְכַוְורֵי. חַד בָּבָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא.
And Shmuel says with regard to this one who opened a blockage and enabled water to enter into a section of land, if he had in mind the improvement of the field, to irrigate it, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the catching of the fish, i.e., to enable the water to flow in so that he could catch the fish therein, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he opened two gates, one bringing in the water and one taking out the water, this indicates that he had in mind the catching of the fish, as the water will flow out of the field, giving him the means to catch the fish; but if he opened only one gate, this indicates that he had in mind the improvement of the field.
הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דַּאֲכַלָה דִּיקְלָא בְּתַפְשִׁיחָא, תְּלֵיסַר שְׁנִין. אֲתָא הָהוּא [גַּבְרָא], רָפֵיק תּוּתֵיהּ פּוּרְתָּא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּלֵוִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא, אוֹקְמֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתַאי קָא צָוְוחָא קַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לַהּ: מַאי אֶעֱבֵיד לָךְ, דְּלָא אַחְזֵיקְתְּ כִּדְמַחְזְקִי אִינָשֵׁי.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who profited from an ownerless palm tree by cutting its branches for thirteen years. Another then came and plowed beneath it a bit. The case came before Levi, and some say that it came before Mar Ukva, who established the property in the possession of the one who plowed. The woman came and shouted before him, protesting the perceived injustice of his ruling. Mar Ukva said to her: What can I do for you, as you did not take possession of the property in the manner that people take possession?
אָמַר רַב: הַצָּר צוּרָה בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר – קָנָה; דְּרַב לָא קָנֵי לְגִנְּתָא דְּבֵי רַב, אֶלָּא בְּצוּרְתָּא.
Rav says: One who draws an image, e.g., he paints an image on the wall, on the property of a convert who died without heirs has acquired it, as Rav himself acquired the garden of the house of Rav, which had been ownerless property, only by drawing an image.
אִיתְּמַר: שָׂדֶה הַמְסוּיֶּימֶת בִּמְצָרֶיהָ – אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִכִּישׁ בָּהּ מַכּוֹשׁ אֶחָד – קָנָה כּוּלָּהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מַכּוֹשׁוֹ בִּלְבַד.
§ It was stated: With regard to a field that is defined by its boundaries, i.e., it has clearly demarcated boundaries on all sides, Rav Huna says that Rav says: Once he struck the land with a hoe one time, he acquired the entire property. And Shmuel says that he has acquired only the place that he struck with the hoe.
וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מְסוּיֶּימֶת בִּמְצָרֶיהָ, עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כִּדְאָזֵיל תַּיָּירָא דְשׁוֹרֵי וְהָדַר.
And if it is not defined by its boundaries, up to how much of the field is acquired by one strike of the hoe? Rav Pappa said: He acquires as far as an ox driver goes and returns, i.e., the size of a standard furrow, beginning where the hoe entered the ground.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִכְסֵי גּוֹי הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִדְבָּר, כׇּל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶן זָכָה בָּהֶן. מַאי טַעְמָא? גּוֹי – מִכִּי מָטוּ זוּזֵי לִידֵיהּ אִסְתַּלַּק לֵיהּ, יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא קָנֵי עַד דְּמָטֵי שְׁטָרָא לִידֵיהּ. הִלְכָּךְ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִדְבָּר, וְכׇל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶן זָכָה בָּהֶן.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to the property of a gentile that was sold to a Jew for money, it is ownerless like a desert until the purchaser performs an act of acquisition; anyone who takes possession of it in the interim has acquired it. What is the reason for this? The gentile relinquishes ownership of it from the moment when the money reaches his hand, while the Jew who purchased it does not acquire it until the deed reaches his hand. Therefore, in the period of time between the giving of the money and the receiving of the deed, the property is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it has acquired it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי?! וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא; וּמַלְכָּא אָמַר: לָא לִיקְנֵי אַרְעָא אֶלָּא בְּאִיגַּרְתָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לָא יָדַעְנָא; עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּדוּרָא דְרָעֲוָתָא, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּזְבַן אַרְעָא מִגּוֹי, וַאֲתָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרִינָא רָפֵיק בָּהּ פּוּרְתָּא; אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, אוֹקְמַהּ בִּידָא דְּשֵׁנִי.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Shmuel actually say this? But doesn’t Shmuel say that the law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., the halakha obligates Jews to observe the laws of the locale in which they reside, and the king said that land may not be acquired without a document? Therefore, taking possession should not be effective for acquisition. Rav Yosef said to him: I do not know how to reconcile this contradiction, but there was an incident in the village of Dura that was founded by shepherds, where there was a Jew who purchased land from a gentile by giving money, and in the interim another Jew came and plowed it a bit. The two Jews came before Rav Yehuda for a ruling, and he established the property in the possession of the second individual. This accords with the ruling of Shmuel that the property is ownerless until a Jew performs an act of acquisition.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דּוּרָא דְרָעֲוָתָא קָאָמְרַתְּ?! הָתָם בָּאגֵי מִטַּמְּרִי הֲווֹ – דְּאִינְהוּ גּוּפַיְיהוּ לָא הֲווֹ יָהֲבִי טַסְקָא לְמַלְכָּא, וּמַלְכָּא אֲמַר: מַאן דְּיָהֵיב טַסְקָא, לֵיכוֹל אַרְעָא.
Abaye said to him: Are you saying that the incident occurred in Dura that was founded by shepherds? Proof cannot be brought from that case, as there the fields were concealed, since the owners of fields would not pay the land tax [taska] to the king, and the king says that one who pays land tax may profit from the field. Therefore, in that case, the gentile who sold the property did not actually own it, and consequently by the laws of the kingdom could not sell it. The one who took possession of the property acquired it in accordance with the law of the kingdom, as he committed to pay the land tax. Elsewhere, one would not acquire the field until he received a deed of sale from the gentile.
רַב הוּנָא זְבֵן אַרְעָא מִגּוֹי, אֲתָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר רָפֵיק בַּהּ פּוּרְתָּא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אוֹקְמַהּ בִּידֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ? דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִכְסֵי גּוֹי הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִדְבָּר, וְכׇל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶם זָכָה?
The Gemara relates: Rav Huna purchased land from a gentile. Another Jew came and plowed it slightly. Rav Huna and that Jew came before Rav Naḥman, who established the property in the possession of the latter. Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: What are you thinking in issuing this ruling? Is it because Shmuel says that the property of a gentile is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it has acquired it?
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.
Din & Daf: Following the Law of the Land- Dina d’Malchuta Dina
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.
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Minnesota, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Bronx, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Philadelphia, United States
Tel Aviv, 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
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
Los Angeles, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
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
Bava Batra 54
דִּשְׁדָא לִיפְתָּא בֵּי פִילֵי דְּאַרְעָא דְגֵר – לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? בְּעִידָּנָא דִּשְׁדָא – לָא הָוֵי שְׁבָחָא, הַשְׁתָּא דְּקָא שָׁבַח – מִמֵּילָא קָא שָׁבַח.
who threw turnip seeds in the crevices [filei] of the land of a convert who died without heirs, it is not sufficient to take possession. What is the reason for this? As at the time that he threw the seeds there was no enhancement to the value of the field. Now that the turnips have grown and the value of the field is enhanced, it is enhanced by itself.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּפָשַׁח דִּיקְלָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְּדִיקְלָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְחֵיוָתָא – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שְׁקַל מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וּמֵהַאי גִּיסָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְּדִיקְלָא. כּוֹלָּא מֵחַד גִּיסָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְחֵיוָתָא.
The Gemara records a series of rulings with regard to taking possession of land. Shmuel says: With regard to this one who cuts the branches of a palm tree, if he had in mind the acquisition of the palm tree, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the benefit of the animals, to feed his animals the branches, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he took branches from this side and from that side, he had in mind the acquisition of the palm tree, as this assists the growth of the tree; but if the branches that he took were all from one side, he had in mind the benefit of the animals.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּזָכֵי זִיכְיָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְצִיבֵי – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שְׁקַל רַבְרְבֵי וְזוּטְרֵי – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא, שְׁקַל רַבְרְבֵי וּשְׁבַק זוּטְרֵי – אַדַּעְתָּא דְצִיבֵי.
And Shmuel says with regard to this one who clears [dezakkei zikheya] a field of trees, if he had in mind the improvement of the field, to prepare it for plowing, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the collection of the wood, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he took large and small pieces of wood, he had in mind the improvement of the field; however, if he took the large pieces of wood but left the small ones, he had in mind the collection of the wood.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּאתָקֵיל תִּיקְלָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְבֵי דָרֵי – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שְׁקַל מוּלְיָא וּשְׁדָא בְּנַצָּא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא. מוּלְיָא בְּמוּלְיָא וְנַצָּא בְּנַצָּא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְבֵי דָרֵי.
And Shmuel says with regard to this one who removes protuberances and levels the ground, if he had in mind the improvement of the field, to prepare it for plowing, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the conversion of the field into a threshing floor, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he took a mound and threw it in a ditch, thereby leveling both areas, he had in mind the improvement of the field; but if he leveled the ground with a mound in the place of a mound and a ditch in the place of a ditch, expanding each area but leaving the field as a whole uneven, he had in mind the conversion of the field into a threshing floor.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּפָתַח מַיָּא בְּאַרְעָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְכַוְורֵי – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? פָּתַח תְּרֵי בָבֵי, חַד מְעַיֵּיל וְחַד מַפֵּיק – אַדַּעְתָּא דְכַוְורֵי. חַד בָּבָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא.
And Shmuel says with regard to this one who opened a blockage and enabled water to enter into a section of land, if he had in mind the improvement of the field, to irrigate it, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the catching of the fish, i.e., to enable the water to flow in so that he could catch the fish therein, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he opened two gates, one bringing in the water and one taking out the water, this indicates that he had in mind the catching of the fish, as the water will flow out of the field, giving him the means to catch the fish; but if he opened only one gate, this indicates that he had in mind the improvement of the field.
הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דַּאֲכַלָה דִּיקְלָא בְּתַפְשִׁיחָא, תְּלֵיסַר שְׁנִין. אֲתָא הָהוּא [גַּבְרָא], רָפֵיק תּוּתֵיהּ פּוּרְתָּא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּלֵוִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא, אוֹקְמֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתַאי קָא צָוְוחָא קַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לַהּ: מַאי אֶעֱבֵיד לָךְ, דְּלָא אַחְזֵיקְתְּ כִּדְמַחְזְקִי אִינָשֵׁי.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who profited from an ownerless palm tree by cutting its branches for thirteen years. Another then came and plowed beneath it a bit. The case came before Levi, and some say that it came before Mar Ukva, who established the property in the possession of the one who plowed. The woman came and shouted before him, protesting the perceived injustice of his ruling. Mar Ukva said to her: What can I do for you, as you did not take possession of the property in the manner that people take possession?
אָמַר רַב: הַצָּר צוּרָה בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר – קָנָה; דְּרַב לָא קָנֵי לְגִנְּתָא דְּבֵי רַב, אֶלָּא בְּצוּרְתָּא.
Rav says: One who draws an image, e.g., he paints an image on the wall, on the property of a convert who died without heirs has acquired it, as Rav himself acquired the garden of the house of Rav, which had been ownerless property, only by drawing an image.
אִיתְּמַר: שָׂדֶה הַמְסוּיֶּימֶת בִּמְצָרֶיהָ – אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִכִּישׁ בָּהּ מַכּוֹשׁ אֶחָד – קָנָה כּוּלָּהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מַכּוֹשׁוֹ בִּלְבַד.
§ It was stated: With regard to a field that is defined by its boundaries, i.e., it has clearly demarcated boundaries on all sides, Rav Huna says that Rav says: Once he struck the land with a hoe one time, he acquired the entire property. And Shmuel says that he has acquired only the place that he struck with the hoe.
וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מְסוּיֶּימֶת בִּמְצָרֶיהָ, עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כִּדְאָזֵיל תַּיָּירָא דְשׁוֹרֵי וְהָדַר.
And if it is not defined by its boundaries, up to how much of the field is acquired by one strike of the hoe? Rav Pappa said: He acquires as far as an ox driver goes and returns, i.e., the size of a standard furrow, beginning where the hoe entered the ground.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִכְסֵי גּוֹי הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִדְבָּר, כׇּל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶן זָכָה בָּהֶן. מַאי טַעְמָא? גּוֹי – מִכִּי מָטוּ זוּזֵי לִידֵיהּ אִסְתַּלַּק לֵיהּ, יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא קָנֵי עַד דְּמָטֵי שְׁטָרָא לִידֵיהּ. הִלְכָּךְ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִדְבָּר, וְכׇל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶן זָכָה בָּהֶן.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to the property of a gentile that was sold to a Jew for money, it is ownerless like a desert until the purchaser performs an act of acquisition; anyone who takes possession of it in the interim has acquired it. What is the reason for this? The gentile relinquishes ownership of it from the moment when the money reaches his hand, while the Jew who purchased it does not acquire it until the deed reaches his hand. Therefore, in the period of time between the giving of the money and the receiving of the deed, the property is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it has acquired it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי?! וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא; וּמַלְכָּא אָמַר: לָא לִיקְנֵי אַרְעָא אֶלָּא בְּאִיגַּרְתָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לָא יָדַעְנָא; עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּדוּרָא דְרָעֲוָתָא, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּזְבַן אַרְעָא מִגּוֹי, וַאֲתָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרִינָא רָפֵיק בָּהּ פּוּרְתָּא; אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, אוֹקְמַהּ בִּידָא דְּשֵׁנִי.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Shmuel actually say this? But doesn’t Shmuel say that the law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., the halakha obligates Jews to observe the laws of the locale in which they reside, and the king said that land may not be acquired without a document? Therefore, taking possession should not be effective for acquisition. Rav Yosef said to him: I do not know how to reconcile this contradiction, but there was an incident in the village of Dura that was founded by shepherds, where there was a Jew who purchased land from a gentile by giving money, and in the interim another Jew came and plowed it a bit. The two Jews came before Rav Yehuda for a ruling, and he established the property in the possession of the second individual. This accords with the ruling of Shmuel that the property is ownerless until a Jew performs an act of acquisition.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דּוּרָא דְרָעֲוָתָא קָאָמְרַתְּ?! הָתָם בָּאגֵי מִטַּמְּרִי הֲווֹ – דְּאִינְהוּ גּוּפַיְיהוּ לָא הֲווֹ יָהֲבִי טַסְקָא לְמַלְכָּא, וּמַלְכָּא אֲמַר: מַאן דְּיָהֵיב טַסְקָא, לֵיכוֹל אַרְעָא.
Abaye said to him: Are you saying that the incident occurred in Dura that was founded by shepherds? Proof cannot be brought from that case, as there the fields were concealed, since the owners of fields would not pay the land tax [taska] to the king, and the king says that one who pays land tax may profit from the field. Therefore, in that case, the gentile who sold the property did not actually own it, and consequently by the laws of the kingdom could not sell it. The one who took possession of the property acquired it in accordance with the law of the kingdom, as he committed to pay the land tax. Elsewhere, one would not acquire the field until he received a deed of sale from the gentile.
רַב הוּנָא זְבֵן אַרְעָא מִגּוֹי, אֲתָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר רָפֵיק בַּהּ פּוּרְתָּא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אוֹקְמַהּ בִּידֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ? דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִכְסֵי גּוֹי הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִדְבָּר, וְכׇל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶם זָכָה?
The Gemara relates: Rav Huna purchased land from a gentile. Another Jew came and plowed it slightly. Rav Huna and that Jew came before Rav Naḥman, who established the property in the possession of the latter. Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: What are you thinking in issuing this ruling? Is it because Shmuel says that the property of a gentile is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it has acquired it?
