בבא בתרא כט

בבא בתרא כט

דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, ״בְּנוּ בָתִּים וְשֵׁבוּ, וְנִטְעוּ גַנּוֹת וְאִכְלוּ אֶת פִּרְיָן״ – מַאי קָאָמַר? אֶלָּא עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן; הָכָא נָמֵי – עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. תִּדַּע, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּנְתַתָּם בִּכְלִי חָרֶשׂ, לְמַעַן יַעַמְדוּ יָמִים רַבִּים״.

Because if you do not say so, then when he states: “Build houses, and dwell in them, and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them” (Jeremiah 29:5), what halakhic statement was he saying? Rather, he teaches us good advice, and here too he teaches us good advice. The Gemara comments: Know that this was mere advice, as it is written: “And put them in an earthen vessel; that they may continue many days” (Jeremiah 32:14). This is obviously good advice to preserve the items properly, and is not a halakhic statement. Therefore, this is not a proof that the presumption of ownership cannot be established in under three years.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: שַׁתָּא קַמַּיְיתָא מָחֵיל אִינִישׁ, תַּרְתֵּי מָחֵיל, תְּלָת לָא מָחֵיל.

Rather, Rava said a different reason: A person who sees another profiting from his field might waive his rights during the first year, and he might waive his rights for two years, but he will not waive his rights for three years. Therefore, if one does not lodge a protest by the end of the third year, it is tantamount to a concession that the land is not his.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כִּי הָדְרָא אַרְעָא, תִּיהְדַּר לְבַר מִפֵּירֵי! אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הָדְרָא אַרְעָא וְהָדְרִי פֵּירֵי?

Abaye said to him: If that is so, when it becomes clear that the land is in fact owned by another and it is returned to its owner, it should be returned, save for the produce that the possessor consumed during the first two years, as the owner waived his rights to it. Why did Rav Naḥman say: The land is returned and the produce is returned?

אֶלָּא, אָמַר רָבָא: שַׁתָּא קַמַּיְיתָא לָא קָפֵיד אִינִישׁ, תַּרְתֵּי לָא קָפֵיד, תְּלָת קָפֵיד.

Rather, Rava said a different reason: A person is not particular the first year to lodge a protest, and he is not particular for two years, even though he does not waive his rights to the produce. He is particular to lodge a protest when he sees another profiting from his field for three years. Therefore, if one does not lodge a protest by the end of the third year, it is tantamount to a concession that the land is not his.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כְּגוֹן הָנֵי דְּבֵי בַּר אֶלְיָשִׁיב – דְּקָפְדִי אֲפִילּוּ אַמַּאן דְּחָלֵיף אַמִּיצְרָא דִידְהוּ, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּלְאַלְתַּר הָוֵי חֲזָקָה? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, אִם כֵּן נָתַתָּ דְּבָרֶיךָ לְשִׁיעוּרִין!

Abaye said to him: If that is so, for people such as those of the bar Elyashiv household, who are particular even with regard to one who goes on the boundary of their field, here too, will you say that presumptive ownership is established immediately, as soon as one makes use of their property without their lodging a protest? And if you would say that is indeed the halakha, if so, you have subjected your statement to the varying circumstances of each case, as there will be a different length of time needed to establish the presumption of ownership depending on who the prior owner is. This is untenable.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: שַׁתָּא קַמַּיְיתָא מִיזְדְּהַר אִינִישׁ בִּשְׁטָרֵיהּ, תַּרְתֵּי וּתְלָת מִיזְדְּהַר, טְפֵי לָא מִיזְדְּהַר.

Rather, Rava said a different reason: A person is careful with his document detailing his purchase of land for the first year after the purchase, and he is also careful for two and three years. For more time than that, he is not careful and might discard the document if no one has lodged a protest concerning his possession of the land. Therefore, the Sages ruled that after three years have passed, he can prove his ownership by means of presumptive ownership.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו – לָא תִּיהְוֵי מֶחָאָה, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי מַחֵית בְּאַפַּאי, הֲוָה מִיזְדְהַרְנָא בִּשְׁטָרַאי!

Abaye said to him: If that is so, a protest that is lodged not in his presence should not be a valid protest, and if three years pass with no protest in his presence, presumptive ownership should be established even if there was a protest lodged before other people. This is because the one possessing the land can say to the claimant: If you had protested in my presence, I would have been careful with my document and would not have discarded it.

דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: חַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ, וְחַבְרָא דְחַבְרָךְ – חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ.

The Gemara explains that this claim would not be accepted, because the claimant can say to him: Your friend has a friend, and your friend’s friend has a friend, and the assumption is that word of the protest reached you.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ, הוּא שֶׁאֲכָלָן רְצוּפוֹת. מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: חֶזְקָתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, ״מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם״ לְאַפּוֹקֵי מְקוּטָּעוֹת – וּלְעוֹלָם אֲפִילּוּ מְפוּזָּרוֹת; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

§ Rav Huna says: The three years that the Sages said are required to establish the presumption of ownership is referring to when he worked and profited from the field in consecutive years. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Huna teaching us with this statement? We learned this in the mishna: Their presumption of ownership is established by use for a duration of three years from day to day. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the phrase: From day to day, serves to exclude partial years and to teach that each of the three years must be full, and actually even scattered, i.e., non-consecutive, years are sufficient, therefore, Rav Huna teaches us that the years must be consecutive.

אָמַר רַב חָמָא: וּמוֹדֵי רַב הוּנָא בְּאַתְרֵי דְּמוֹבְרִי בָּאגֵי.

Rav Ḥama says: And Rav Huna concedes with regard to locations where they leave fields [bagei] to lie fallow by planting in alternate years, that the three years combine despite not being consecutive, as that is the manner in which owners profit from the land.

פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא דְּמוֹבַר וְאִיכָּא דְּלָא מוֹבַר – וְהַאי גַּבְרָא מוֹבְרַהּ; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם אִיתָא דְּדִידָךְ הֲוַאי, אִיבְּעִי לָךְ לְמִיזְרְעַהּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲדָא אַרְעָא בְּכוּלֵּיהּ בָּאגָא – לָא מָצֵינָא לִינְטַר.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that this is the halakha? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this with regard to locations where there are some people who leave the fields to lie fallow and there are some people who do not leave the fields to lie fallow, and this man left the field to lie fallow. Lest you say that the claimant can say to him: If it is so that the land is yours, you should have sown it, therefore, Rav Ḥama teaches us that the possessor can say to the claimant: I am not able to hire someone to guard one parcel of land within an entire field, and I acted like those who own other land in this location and let the field lie fallow.

וְאִי נָמֵי, בְּהָכִי נִיחָא לִי – דְּעָבְדָא טְפֵי.

And alternatively, the possessor can say to the claimant: In this manner of farming it is beneficial for me to farm, because the land produces more later, and I do not wish to plant year after year and weaken the soil.

תְּנַן: חֶזְקַת הַבָּתִּים. וְהָא בָּתִּים – דְּבִימָמָא יָדְעִי, בְּלֵילְיָא לָא יָדְעִי!

The Gemara clarifies Rav Huna’s statement that the presumption of ownership can be established only by consecutive use. We learned in the mishna about the presumptive ownership of houses. But with regard to the use of houses, where the witnesses attesting to its use know who uses the house only in the day, but they do not know who uses the house in the night, how then can one establish the presumption of ownership in the case of a house? The possessor’s use is not consecutive, as it is continually interrupted by the nights.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאן מַסְהֵיד אַבָּתִּים – שִׁיבָבֵי; שִׁיבָבֵי מִידָּע יָדְעִי בִּימָמָא וּבְלֵילְיָא.

Abaye said: Who testifies about houses? Neighbors, and neighbors know who is inside in the day and in the night.

רָבָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּאָתוּ בֵּי תְרֵי, וְאָמְרִי: אֲנַן אָגְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ, וְדָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ תְּלָת שְׁנִין בִּימָמָא וּבְלֵילְיָא.

Rava said that there is another scenario in which one can bring witnesses with regard to the use of a house. This is such as when two people come and say: We rented the house from him and we lived in it for three years, in the day and in the night. This testimony substantiates that the house was used under the authority of the one who is attempting to prove that he has established the presumption of ownership.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָנֵי נוֹגְעִין בְּעֵדוּתָן הֵן – דְּאִי לָא אָמְרִי הָכִי, אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ: זִילוּ הַבוּ לֵיהּ אֲגַר בֵּיתָא לְהַאי!

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: How can their testimony be relied upon? These witnesses are biased in their testimony, because if they do not say this testimony, that they rented the house from the possessor for three consecutive years, we say to them: Go and give payment for the rental of the house to that one who is claiming ownership, as the one you paid has not established that he is the true owner.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּיָּינֵי דִּשְׁפִילִי הָכִי דָּאיָנִי. מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן כְּגוֹן דִּנְקִיטִי אֲגַר בֵּיתָא וְאָמְרִי: לְמַאן לִיתְּבֵיהּ?

Rav Ashi said to him: Low-level judges rule this way. In other words, only a court composed of ignorant judges would accept the testimony of the renters of the house in a case where they are biased in their testimony. Nevertheless, Rava’s scenario is still possible, as, are we not dealing with a case where they are holding the money for the payment for the rental of the house, and they are saying to the court: To whom shall we give it? Therefore, they are not biased in their testimony, because they will pay the same amount, regardless of who the actual owner is.

אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא, וְאִי טָעֵין וְאָמַר: לֵיתוֹ תְּרֵי סָהֲדִי לְאַסְהוֹדֵי לֵיהּ דְּדָר בֵּיהּ תְּלָת שְׁנֵי בִּימָמָא וּבְלֵילְיָא – טַעְנְתֵיהּ טַעֲנָה.

The Gemara quotes a related statement. Mar Zutra said: And if the claimant claims and says: Let two witnesses come to testify for the possessor that he lived in the house three years in the day and in the night, his claim is a legitimate claim.

וּמוֹדֵי מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרוֹכְלִין הַמַּחֲזִירִין בָּעֲיָירוֹת, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא טָעַן – טָעֲנִינַן לֵיהּ אֲנַן.

And Mar Zutra concedes with regard to peddlers who travel through cities, during which time others might live in their houses, that even though the claimant does not claim that he insists on testimony that there was continuous use, day and night, over three years, we the court claim this for him. Since people know they are traveling salesmen, it is more likely that people lived in their houses without permission and without their knowledge.

וּמוֹדֶה רַב הוּנָא בְּחַנְוָתָא דְמָחוֹזָא – דְּלִימָמָא עֲבִידָא, לְלֵילְיָא לָא עֲבִידָא.

With regard to the requirement for continuous day and night use to establish the presumption of ownership, the Gemara comments: And Rav Huna concedes with regard to a store in the town of Meḥoza, which is generally used in the day and is not generally used in the night, that one is not required to use it in the night to establish the presumption of ownership.

רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא וְרַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא זְבוּן הָהִיא אַמְּתָא בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. מָר אִישְׁתַּמַּשׁ בָּהּ רִאשׁוֹנָה שְׁלִישִׁית וַחֲמִישִׁית, וּמָר אִישְׁתַּמַּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁנִיָּה רְבִיעִית וְשִׁשִּׁית. נְפַק עַרְעָר עִילָּוַהּ,

With regard to the requirement of continuous use to establish the presumption of ownership, the Gemara relates that Rami bar Ḥama and Rav Ukva bar Ḥama purchased a maidservant together. One Sage made use of her during the first, third, and fifth years, and one Sage made use of her during the second, fourth, and sixth years. One individual who contested their ownership of the maidservant emerged and claimed that he was the owner.

אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַאי טַעְמָא עָבְדִיתוּ הָכִי – כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תַּחְזְקוּ אַהֲדָדֵי; כִּי הֵיכִי דִּלְדִידְכוּ לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה, לְעָלְמָא נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה.

They came before Rava for a judgment. He said to them: What is the reason you acted like this, making use of her in alternate years, so that each of you would not establish the presumption of ownership concerning each other by making use of her for three consecutive years? Just as this usage does not establish the presumption of ownership with regard to you, it does not establish the presumption of ownership with regard to others, i.e., the claimant in this case, as well.

וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא כְּתוּב עִיטְרָא, אֲבָל כְּתוּב עִיטְרָא – קָלָא אִית לֵיהּ.

The Gemara adds: And we said this only in a case where it was not written in a document that they are partners and are dividing the use, but if it was written in a document, the document generates publicity that they own the maidservant as partners rather than individually, and they can jointly establish the presumption of ownership.

אָמַר רָבָא: אֲכָלָהּ כּוּלָּהּ, חוּץ מִבֵּית רוֹבַע – קָנָה כּוּלָּהּ, חוּץ מִבֵּית רוֹבַע.

§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the requirement for full use of land to establish the presumption of ownership. Rava says: If one worked and profited, for three years, from all of the land except for the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova], which he did not use, he acquires all of the field based on presumptive ownership except for that beit rova.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּבַר זְרִיעָה הִיא, אֲבָל לָאו בַּר זְרִיעָה הִיא – קָנֵי לַהּ אַגַּב אַרְעָא.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: And we said this ruling only where that beit rova is suitable for planting, but if it is not suitable for planting, he acquires it by means of the acquisition of the rest of the land.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, צוּנְמָא – בַּמֶּה יִקְנֶה? אֶלָּא בְּאוֹקוֹמֵי בָּהּ חֵיוָתָא וּמִשְׁטְחָא בַּהּ פֵּירֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי – אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאוֹקוֹמֵי בָּהּ חֵיוָתָא, אִי נָמֵי מִשְׁטְחָא בַּהּ פֵּירֵי.

Rav Beivai bar Abaye objects to this: If that is so, how could one acquire an area that is only rock by establishing the presump-tion of ownership, as one does not plant rocky land? Rather, the presumption of ownership can be established by standing animals on it or spreading produce on it. Here too, he should be required to stand animals on the beit rova or to spread produce on it. If he did not profit from this small piece of land at all, he has not established the presumption of ownership with regard to it, and acquires only the rest of the field.

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית בְּהַאי בֵּיתָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִינָּךְ זְבֵינְתֵּיהּ, וַאֲכַלִית שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא בִּשְׁכוּנֵי גַּוּוֹאֵי הֲוַאי.

§ The Gemara relates that there was a certain person who said to another: What do you want, i.e., what are you doing, with this house of mine? The other said to him: I purchased it from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: I was among the distant settlements, and was unaware that you were residing in my house, which is why I did not lodge a protest.

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל בְּרוֹר אֲכִילְתָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הָכִי דִּינָא?! הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה!

The one residing in the house came before Rav Naḥman for a judgment. Rav Naḥman said to him: Go clarify your profiting, i.e., prove that you really resided there for three years, and then the case can be judged. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Is this the correct judgment? The halakha is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Therefore, the one who is attempting to take the house from the possessor should have to prove that the other did not reside in the house.

וְרָמֵי דְּרָבָא אַדְּרָבָא, וְרָמֵי דְּרַב נַחְמָן אַדְּרַב נַחְמָן – דְּהָהוּא

And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rava and another statement of Rava, and it raises a contradiction between this statement of Rav Naḥman and another statement of Rav Naḥman. As there was a certain person