Two people claimed they had each inherited a particular piece of land from their fathers. Rav Nachman ruled that the stronger one prevails. How is this case different from two people claiming ownership of an item by having a document of sale or gift issued on the same date where Rav and Shmuel disagree – one holds it is divided and the other that it is given to the judges’ discretion? How is it different from a case where a cow is traded for a donkey or a maidservant is sold and the cow/maidservant has offspring and it is unclear if the birth happened before or after the sale and the ruling is that the offspring is split between the two parties? In a case where the verdict is that the strongest one prevails, what happens if a third party comes and seizes the item? In what situations is presumptive status established immediately? Gentiles can only establish ownership with a document, not with a chazaka. Rav ruled that a Jew who claims that he/she bought property from a gentile, must prove it with a document.
Bava Batra 35
Share this shiur:
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:
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 35
דְּרַב אָמַר: יַחְלוֹקוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי? הָתָם, לֵיכָּא לְמֵיקַם עֲלַהּ דְּמִילְּתָא; הָכָא, אִיכָּא לְמֵיקַם עֲלַהּ דְּמִילְּתָא.
as Rav said: In that case, they should divide the property between them, and Shmuel said: It is decided based on the discretion [shudda] of the judges. Why in the seemingly equivalent case of a dispute where there is no evidence for either litigant did Rav Naḥman rule that whoever is stronger prevails? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the two deeds, it will not be possible for the court to clarify the matter in the future, and therefore, the court issues a ruling according to the information they currently have. Here, in the case of Rav Naḥman, it may be possible for the court to clarify the matter in the future, if one of the litigants was to bring witnesses supporting his claim.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: הַמַּחֲלִיף פָּרָה בַּחֲמוֹר, וְיָלְדָה; וְכֵן הַמּוֹכֵר שִׁפְחָתוֹ, וְיָלְדָה – זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָכַרְתִּי יָלְדָה״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״מִשֶּׁלָּקַחְתִּי יָלְדָה״ – יַחְלוֹקוּ?
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 100a): With regard to one who exchanges a cow for a donkey and the cow calved, and similarly one who sells his Canaanite maidservant and she gave birth, and this one, i.e., the seller, says: She gave birth before I sold either the cow or maidservant, and the offspring belongs to me; and that one, i.e., the buyer, says: She gave birth after I purchased her and the offspring belongs to me, the ruling is that they should divide the value of the newborn. In that case, the court is not able to clarify the matter, so they should rule that whoever is stronger prevails.
הָתָם, לְהַאי
The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the exchange, for this one, i.e., the buyer,
אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא, וּלְהָהוּא אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא; הָכָא, אִי דְּמָר – לָא דְּמָר, וְאִי דְּמָר – לָא דְּמָר.
he has financial involvement [derara], and for that one, i.e., the seller, he has financial involvement. Since each of them has a definite claim to owning the offspring, as each of them owned the cow or maidservant at one point, it is reasonable for the court to divide the offspring between the two parties. By contrast, here, in the case of Rav Naḥman, if it belongs to this Master it does not belong to that Master, and if it belongs to that Master it does not belong to this Master. Only one of the two litigants has any claim to the property, as it belonged either to the ancestors of this one or of that one. Therefore, a ruling to divide it would not be appropriate.
אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: אִם בָּא אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק, וְהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: גַּזְלָן שֶׁל רַבִּים לָאו שְׁמֵיהּ גַּזְלָן.
The Sages of Neharde’a say: In a case where two parties disputed the ownership of a certain property and the court ruled that whoever is stronger prevails, if one from the marketplace who had no claim came and took possession of it, the court does not remove it from his possession, as Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:14): A robber of the public, meaning a robber whose victim is unknown, is not called a robber. Since it is unclear whom he robbed, no one is able to demand payment. Here too, since it is unclear whose property it is, neither can demand that it be taken from the robber.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם שְׁמֵיהּ גַּזְלָן, וּמַאי ״לָא שְׁמֵיהּ גַּזְלָן״? שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן לְהִשָּׁבוֹן.
Rav Ashi said in disagreement: Actually, he is called a robber, and the property is taken from him, and what is meant by: He is not called a robber? It means that the stolen item is not subject to being returned, and consequently he is unable to fully atone, as he does not know whom to repay.
חׇזְקָתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: אִי דָּלֵי לֵיהּ אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ צַנָּא דְפֵירֵי, לְאַלְתַּר הָוֵי חֲזָקָה. אָמַר רַב זְבִיד, וְאִם טָעַן וְאָמַר: ״לְפֵירוֹת הוֹרַדְתִּיו״ – נֶאֱמָן. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ, אֲבָל לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ – לָא.
§ The mishna teaches with regard to certain types of property that their presumptive ownership is established by use of a duration of three years from day to day. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Abba says: Nevertheless, there are cases where presumptive ownership is established immediately. For example, if the prior owner himself lifted a basket of fruit from that field for the possessor, that immediately is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and the prior owner can no longer lodge a protest. Rav Zevid says: But if the prior owner stated a claim and said: I brought him down into my field solely to consume the produce, e.g., as a sharecropper, he is deemed credible. And that halakha, that the prior owner is deemed credible were he to state such a claim, applies only if he stated it within three years of when the other took possession, but after three years he is not deemed credible.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: אִי לְפִירָא אַחֲתֵיהּ, מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי.
Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If in fact he did bring him down into the field solely to consume the produce, what was there for him to do to prevent the possessor from establishing the presumption of ownership? Rav Kahana said to him: He should have protested during the first three years and publicized that he had granted the possessor rights to the produce alone.
דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָנֵי מַשְׁכְּנָתָא דְסוּרָא, דִּכְתִב בְּהוּ: ״בְּמִשְׁלַם שְׁנַיָּא אִלֵּין תִּיפּוֹק אַרְעָא דָּא בְּלָא כְּסַף״; אִי כָּבֵישׁ לֵיהּ לִשְׁטַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא גַּבֵּיהּ, וְאָמַר: לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְהֵימַן? מְתַקְּנִי רַבָּנַן מִידֵּי דְּאָתֵי בֵּיהּ לִידֵי פְּסֵידָא?! אֶלָּא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי.
The assumption that lodging a protest would be effective must be correct, since if you do not say so, then in the case of this mortgage according to the custom in Sura, a city in Babylonia, in which is written: At the completion of these years this land will be released to its prior owner without any need for the prior owner to give money, if the creditor were to hide the mortgage document in his possession and say: This land is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, here is it also the case that he would be deemed credible? That cannot be, as is it reasonable that the Sages would institute a matter, such as this type of arrangement, that people can be led by it to suffer a loss? Rather, in the case of the mortgage the debtor should have protested, and by not protesting, he causes his own loss. Here, too, in the case of the field, the owner should have protested.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת גּוֹי – הֲרֵי הוּא כְּגוֹי; מָה גּוֹי – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר, אַף יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת גּוֹי – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר. אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִי אָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל:
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to a Jew who comes to claim land due to having received it from a gentile, he is like a gentile in terms of which legal claims are available to him. Therefore, just as a gentile has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership only by means of a document, so too, a Jew who comes to claim land due to having received it from a gentile has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership only by means of a document. Rava said: And if the Jew said to a prior owner, who claims to still own the land:
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 had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Los Angeles, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, 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
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
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
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
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
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
Bava Batra 35
דְּרַב אָמַר: יַחְלוֹקוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי? הָתָם, לֵיכָּא לְמֵיקַם עֲלַהּ דְּמִילְּתָא; הָכָא, אִיכָּא לְמֵיקַם עֲלַהּ דְּמִילְּתָא.
as Rav said: In that case, they should divide the property between them, and Shmuel said: It is decided based on the discretion [shudda] of the judges. Why in the seemingly equivalent case of a dispute where there is no evidence for either litigant did Rav Naḥman rule that whoever is stronger prevails? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the two deeds, it will not be possible for the court to clarify the matter in the future, and therefore, the court issues a ruling according to the information they currently have. Here, in the case of Rav Naḥman, it may be possible for the court to clarify the matter in the future, if one of the litigants was to bring witnesses supporting his claim.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: הַמַּחֲלִיף פָּרָה בַּחֲמוֹר, וְיָלְדָה; וְכֵן הַמּוֹכֵר שִׁפְחָתוֹ, וְיָלְדָה – זֶה אוֹמֵר: ״עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָכַרְתִּי יָלְדָה״, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: ״מִשֶּׁלָּקַחְתִּי יָלְדָה״ – יַחְלוֹקוּ?
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 100a): With regard to one who exchanges a cow for a donkey and the cow calved, and similarly one who sells his Canaanite maidservant and she gave birth, and this one, i.e., the seller, says: She gave birth before I sold either the cow or maidservant, and the offspring belongs to me; and that one, i.e., the buyer, says: She gave birth after I purchased her and the offspring belongs to me, the ruling is that they should divide the value of the newborn. In that case, the court is not able to clarify the matter, so they should rule that whoever is stronger prevails.
הָתָם, לְהַאי
The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the exchange, for this one, i.e., the buyer,
אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא, וּלְהָהוּא אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא; הָכָא, אִי דְּמָר – לָא דְּמָר, וְאִי דְּמָר – לָא דְּמָר.
he has financial involvement [derara], and for that one, i.e., the seller, he has financial involvement. Since each of them has a definite claim to owning the offspring, as each of them owned the cow or maidservant at one point, it is reasonable for the court to divide the offspring between the two parties. By contrast, here, in the case of Rav Naḥman, if it belongs to this Master it does not belong to that Master, and if it belongs to that Master it does not belong to this Master. Only one of the two litigants has any claim to the property, as it belonged either to the ancestors of this one or of that one. Therefore, a ruling to divide it would not be appropriate.
אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: אִם בָּא אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק, וְהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: גַּזְלָן שֶׁל רַבִּים לָאו שְׁמֵיהּ גַּזְלָן.
The Sages of Neharde’a say: In a case where two parties disputed the ownership of a certain property and the court ruled that whoever is stronger prevails, if one from the marketplace who had no claim came and took possession of it, the court does not remove it from his possession, as Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:14): A robber of the public, meaning a robber whose victim is unknown, is not called a robber. Since it is unclear whom he robbed, no one is able to demand payment. Here too, since it is unclear whose property it is, neither can demand that it be taken from the robber.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם שְׁמֵיהּ גַּזְלָן, וּמַאי ״לָא שְׁמֵיהּ גַּזְלָן״? שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן לְהִשָּׁבוֹן.
Rav Ashi said in disagreement: Actually, he is called a robber, and the property is taken from him, and what is meant by: He is not called a robber? It means that the stolen item is not subject to being returned, and consequently he is unable to fully atone, as he does not know whom to repay.
חׇזְקָתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: אִי דָּלֵי לֵיהּ אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ צַנָּא דְפֵירֵי, לְאַלְתַּר הָוֵי חֲזָקָה. אָמַר רַב זְבִיד, וְאִם טָעַן וְאָמַר: ״לְפֵירוֹת הוֹרַדְתִּיו״ – נֶאֱמָן. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלֹשׁ, אֲבָל לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ – לָא.
§ The mishna teaches with regard to certain types of property that their presumptive ownership is established by use of a duration of three years from day to day. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Abba says: Nevertheless, there are cases where presumptive ownership is established immediately. For example, if the prior owner himself lifted a basket of fruit from that field for the possessor, that immediately is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and the prior owner can no longer lodge a protest. Rav Zevid says: But if the prior owner stated a claim and said: I brought him down into my field solely to consume the produce, e.g., as a sharecropper, he is deemed credible. And that halakha, that the prior owner is deemed credible were he to state such a claim, applies only if he stated it within three years of when the other took possession, but after three years he is not deemed credible.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: אִי לְפִירָא אַחֲתֵיהּ, מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי.
Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If in fact he did bring him down into the field solely to consume the produce, what was there for him to do to prevent the possessor from establishing the presumption of ownership? Rav Kahana said to him: He should have protested during the first three years and publicized that he had granted the possessor rights to the produce alone.
דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָנֵי מַשְׁכְּנָתָא דְסוּרָא, דִּכְתִב בְּהוּ: ״בְּמִשְׁלַם שְׁנַיָּא אִלֵּין תִּיפּוֹק אַרְעָא דָּא בְּלָא כְּסַף״; אִי כָּבֵישׁ לֵיהּ לִשְׁטַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא גַּבֵּיהּ, וְאָמַר: לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְהֵימַן? מְתַקְּנִי רַבָּנַן מִידֵּי דְּאָתֵי בֵּיהּ לִידֵי פְּסֵידָא?! אֶלָּא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי.
The assumption that lodging a protest would be effective must be correct, since if you do not say so, then in the case of this mortgage according to the custom in Sura, a city in Babylonia, in which is written: At the completion of these years this land will be released to its prior owner without any need for the prior owner to give money, if the creditor were to hide the mortgage document in his possession and say: This land is purchased and that is why it is in my possession, here is it also the case that he would be deemed credible? That cannot be, as is it reasonable that the Sages would institute a matter, such as this type of arrangement, that people can be led by it to suffer a loss? Rather, in the case of the mortgage the debtor should have protested, and by not protesting, he causes his own loss. Here, too, in the case of the field, the owner should have protested.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת גּוֹי – הֲרֵי הוּא כְּגוֹי; מָה גּוֹי – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר, אַף יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת גּוֹי – אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר. אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִי אָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל:
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to a Jew who comes to claim land due to having received it from a gentile, he is like a gentile in terms of which legal claims are available to him. Therefore, just as a gentile has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership only by means of a document, so too, a Jew who comes to claim land due to having received it from a gentile has the ability to establish the presumption of ownership only by means of a document. Rava said: And if the Jew said to a prior owner, who claims to still own the land:
