Quoting%20commentary for Bava Metzia 215:15

זבין ליה גריוא דארעא במיצעא נכסיה חזינן אי עידית היא אי זיבורית היא זביניה זביני

Samuel said: He who takes possession of the wharfage of a river is an impudent person, but cannot be [legally] removed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated above, p. 425, under Persian law, he who paid the land tax on a plot of land was entitled to it. A large clear space on the river bank was left for the purpose of unloading. It would appear that originally no one had a particular claim to it, and the revenue suffered accordingly. Hence, if one paid the land tax and seized it, he could not be legally removed; nevertheless, since this would cause considerable public inconvenience, he was stigmatised as an impudent man, lacking in civic responsibility. ');">¹³</span> But nowadays that the Persian authorities write [in the warrant of ownership], 'Possess it [sc. the field on the river bank] as far as the depth of water reaching up to the horse's neck', he is removed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the owners fence off their fields at some distance from the water's edge, the land actually belongs to them, and therefore none can legally seize it. ');">¹⁴</span> Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If one takes possession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By paying the land tax thereon. ');">¹⁵</span> [of an estate lying] between [the fields belonging to] brothers or partners, he is an impudent man, yet cannot be removed. R. Nahman said: He can even be removed too; but if it is only on account of the right of pre-emption, he cannot be evicted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the two fields on either side do not belong to brothers or partners, yet the owners allege that they had a prior right to pay the tax and take the land, and had intended doing so, in accordance with the right of pre-emption (v. p. 396, n. 6), their plea is unavailing. ');">¹⁶</span> The Nehardeans said: He is removed even on the score of the right of pre-emption, for it is written, <i>And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VI, 18. This is regarded as an exhortation to the purchaser: 'Why buy a field just here, where it is more useful to its neighbour than another field not adjacent to his, when you can as easily buy a similar field elsewhere, seeing that it makes no difference to you?' ');">¹⁷</span> What if one came to take counsel of him [sc. the neighbour who enjoys the right of pre-emption] and asked, 'Shall I go and buy it?' and he replied, 'Go and buy it': is formal acquisition from him necessary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The performance of a kinyan confirming the surrender of the abutting neighbour's right of pre-emption.] ');">¹⁸</span> or not? — Rabina<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Alfasi reads: R. Nahman. ');">¹⁹</span> ruled: No formal acquisition is necessary; the Nehardeans maintained: It is. And the law is that a formal acquisition is needed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Otherwise the neighbouring estate owner can say, 'I merely stood aside whilst you established its price, as I knew that I would be charged more, being particularly anxious to obtain it.' ');">²⁰</span> Now that you say that a formal acquisition is necessary, — if he did not acquire it of him [and bought the field], it advances or falls in his [the abutting neighbour's] ownership.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the purchase is legally invalid, the abutting neighbour retaining his option on it. Therefore if it appreciates after the purchase, he can insist on taking it over from the vendee at its value at the time of purchase, and the profit of the advance is his. Contrariwise, if it loses in value, he must pay the vendee its full original value. ');">²¹</span> Now, if he bought it for a hundred [<i>zuz</i>], whereas it is worth two hundred, we see: if he [the original vendor] would have sold it to any one at a reduced figure, he [the abutting neighbour] pays him [the vendee] a hundred [<i>zuz</i>] and takes it. But if not [and it was a special favour to the vendee], he must pay him two hundred and only then take it. But if he bought it for two hundred, its value being only one hundred, — it was [at first] thought that he [the abutting neighbour] can say to him, 'I sent you for my benefit, not for my hurt.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the vendee has in fact involuntarily become the neighbour's agent for purchase. Hence the latter can repudiate his act and insist on receiving it at its market value. ');">²²</span> But Mar Kashisha, the son of R. Hisda,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 388, n. 4. ');">²³</span> said to R. Ashi: Thus did the Nehardeans say in R. Nahman's name: There is no law of fraudulent purchase in respect to real estate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the neighbour must render the price paid by the vendee. ');">²⁴</span> If one sold a <i>griwa</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁵</span> of land in the middle of his estate, we see: if it is of the choicest or of the most inferior quality, the sale is valid;

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Metzia 215:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.