Talmud for Bava Batra 3:1

בני לה דכיפין ברם הכא הוה בני דכיפין ובנתיה בליבנין. גבי ליה כיפין וכל שעה דנפיל בני לה. ר' יוסי אומר אם עמד וגדר הרביעית מגלגלין עליו את הכל. רב חונא אמר מגלגלין עליו פשוטו של כותל עד כדון לארכו לרחבו א"ר נסא כותל חצר לא נעשה אלא להציל לו. סברין מימר שאם רצה לקרות אינו מקרה א"ר יוסי בי ר' בון תיפתר על ידי מרישיו:

a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim

“Both are forbidden to put a grindstone or an oven up there, or to raise chickens there⁴Everybody agrees that the common courtyard can be used for private purposes only by the consent of all owners. If the person forbidden by a vow did not object to the other using the courtyard for his private purpose, he would make him a present of monetary value..” This is needed for Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob¹²While the rabbis agree, for them the statement is immaterial since both partners are forbidden entry into the courtyard., for what he states about “partners who mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another.” Because they mutually made vows not to have usufruct from one another, does this imply that if they had not made vows not to have usufruct from one another, they would be presumed to concede one to the other¹³If somebody wants to put up an oven or a grindstone in the courtyard, can he presume to have the permission of all inhabitants of the courtyard without asking?? Rebbi Jeremiah said, partners have the custom to concede one to the other in these matters. There¹⁴Mishnah Baba batra 3:6. It is stated there that simply putting a stove, a grindstone, or chickens into a courtyard does not create a presumption of ownership, but building a foundation for the grindstone or an enclosure for the oven does., we have stated: “The following establish presumption of ownership.¹⁵In the absence of documents, a testimony of three years of undisturbed ownership together with a claim of legal acquisition (by buying, inheritance, or gift) entitles the occupant to a documentary title; cf. Yebamot 12, Note 29 (Mishnah Baba batra 3:4).” Rebbi Eleazar said, if somebody raises chickens in a courtyard in which he does not dwell, this establishes presumption of ownership. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. As you look at it, if he had the right to raise them, he raised them. If he had no right to raise them, he established a presumption of ownership. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah: Partners can veto any activity of the other party in a courtyard except for washing¹⁶He disagrees with R. Jeremiah and the conclusion drawn from the formulation of the Mishnah. The same statement in the Babli, Baba batra 57b. The statement of R. Jeremiah does not appear in the Babli., for the honor of the daughters of Israel¹⁷It cannot be expected that a Jewish woman would go to the river to do her washing there and be seen by everybody without shoes and with uncovered arms.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, at a place where women wash, but not at a place where men wash¹⁸If men wash it is a commercial activity and that certainly needs the permission of the other dwellers in the courtyard.. And what you say except for washing in the courtyard [applies to] the entire courtyard except for the four cubits of that party where one cannot hinder anything¹⁹A strip four cubits wide along the entire front of a house is private property of the owner of the house, not common property of the partners and, as a matter of principle, the owner of the house can do there anything he wants; the mistress of the house can wash there without asking anybody.. But if the place was at an incline, one can veto even within the four cubits of another party since one might say to him, you pour out and it flows down to my place²⁰That is not a matter of property rights but of torts; the injured party could claim damages.. It was stated: The place of an oven or a hearth does not establish a presumption of ownership, but roofing of any size on top of them establishes a presumption of ownership²¹In Mishnah Baba batra 3:6 it is asserted that only a wall of at least ten hand-breadths around an oven or a hearth does count. The text here is very close to Tosephta Baba batra 2:13: Putting an oven or a hearth in a courtyard does not establish a presumption of ownership, but making a roof of any size does.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, only if the wall is useful for the oven.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into the public domain and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a public road is in between? Rebbi Ammi said, Rebbi Jehudah holds with Rebbi Eliezer¹⁸The teacher of his father R. Ilaï., as we have stated there¹⁹Mishnah Baba Batra 3:12.: “One may not make a cavity under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, or caverns. Rebbi Eliezer permits it if a truck loaded with stones can pass over it.” As Rebbi Eliezer said there, under the public domain, it is his, so Rebbi Jehudah said here, under the public domain, it is his. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, if it follows Rebbi Eliezer, he should bring and make the declaration. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac thought that Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that and it remains his permanent property, but Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that but anybody quick to acquire does acquire it²⁰A cavity under the public domain cannot be appropriated for the exclusive use of a private person. Therefore, it may be legal to provine under the public domain but the provined plant is not exclusively in the vintner’s domain.
The statement of R. Eliezer is not discussed in Yerushalmi Baba Batra. The Babli (Baba Batra 60a) holds that the anonymous Tanna would agree with R. Eliezer if the safety of the road could be guaranteed for all times without maintenance. This cannot be the opinion of the Yerushalmi..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin

A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate. A baraita states, the rules of movables. A baraita states, neither the rules of realestate nor the rules of movables. A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate, as we have stated there³⁴⁷Mishnah Baba batra 3:1. The Mishnah discusses how to establish title in the absence of a deed.: “Possession of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves, bath houses, and dovecots, olive presses, and irrigated fields, and slaves.” A baraita states, slaves do not follow the rules of movables. As it is stated: What is possession of a slave^30,His proof that arguments de minore ad majus are inappropriate here is explained at length in Ketubot5:5, Note 100.
As a legal term, חֲזָקָה may have two very different meanings. What seems to be intended here is that ownerless property can be acquired by active actual possession (i. e., possession combined with use.) The idea seems to be that a woman, performing a wife’s duty in a man’s house, by this act should become his wife. The comparison is to a slave woman who belonged to a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family and dies without heirs. Any Jew who gets hold of her and lets her perform a servile job for himself has acquired her in law.
A second meaning of חֲזָקָה is “permanence of the status quo ante,” cf. Giṭṭin 3:3, Notes 81,89; Nazir 9:2, Note 90. This meaning is referred to, somewhat incongruously, in the verse quoted at the end; property is inherited by the permanence of the state of “belonging to”.
A subcategory of “permanence of the status quo ante” is the validation of squatter’s rights after three years of undisturbed possession, if accompanied by a claim of rightful acquisition.³⁴⁸Babli 22b; Tosephta 1:5. Movables are acquired by actually taking them. Similarly, ownerless slaves are acquired by having them carry the new master's property.? He tied his shoe for him, or untied his shoe, carried his things to the bath. Rebbi Simeon says, if he lifted him, that is possession. If he lifted his master, there is no stronger possession than this. A statement of the rabbis says that slaves follow the rules of movables. For Rebbi Yose said in the name of rabbis, there is no lien for a gift³⁴⁹This statement has no connection with the remainder of the text. If real estate is sold, the seller accepts responsibility to indemnify the buyer if the latter should lose the real estate because of foreclosure of a pre-existing lien, whether or not this is spelled out in the sale contract. For a gift of real estate, the donor accepts responsibility only if this is so stated in the deed. In the Babli, Baba batra 128a, this is a matter in dispute; the ultimate authority Rav Naḥman agrees with the ruling of the Yerushalmi.; one does not collect from slaves as from real estate³⁵⁰While slaves can be given in chattel mortgage, they are not subject to blanket liens which cover all the debtor’s real estate. In particular, at places where a woman’s ketubah is a lien only on her husband’s real estate, the ketubah cannot be collected by the widow or divorcee by taking slave girls from the estate.. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Shammai, who are those rabbis? He told him, Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi. ³⁵¹Ketubot 9:3, Notes 111–112. A widow took a slave girl. The case came before Rebbi Isaac who said, what she took, she took. Rebbi Immi took her away, for she thought that she was hers but she was not hers. Not of real estate, as it was stated: Real estate and slaves³⁵²Like Ptolemaic and Roman laws, rabbinic civil law is based on the distinction between ownership and possession. Paying for an acquisition conveys ownership but the transfer of property rights and liabilities requires an act of possession (cf. Halakhot 4,5). Taking possession by use (cf. Note 30) of a piece of real estate establishes possession of all real estate and movables included in one sale contract. Similarly, movables are taken into possession by moving one piece; this simultaneously gives possession of all items included in the sale. Since taking possession of slaves is by individual action only, in this respect they follow neither the rules of real estate nor those of movables. Taking possession of slaves does not induce possession of either real estate or movables covered by the same sales contract; Babli Baba qama 12a.; he took possession of the real estate. If you say that slaves follow the rules of real estate, when he took possession of the real estate he would have taken possession of the slaves, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he had two fields, one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with intention to take possession also of that in Galilee, or of the one in Galilee with intention to take possession also of that in Judea, he acquired³⁵³. Not of movables. If you say that slaves follow the rules of movables, when he took possession of the movables he would have taken possessionof the slaves, since we did state there: “For property that is not guaranteed³⁵⁴I. e., movables which have no title guarantee. will cause guaranteed properties to be objects of swearing about them.³⁵⁵Mishnah 1:5; Šebuot 6:5. Property claims about real estate and slaves, in contrast to movables, cannot be adjudicated by having the parties swear about ownership and responsibility.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma

Available for Premium members only

Full Chapter Next Verse