Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 107:2

אמר שמואל האי מאן דפשח דיקלא אדעתא דדיקלא קני אדעתא דחיותא לא קני היכי דמי שקל מהאי גיסא ומהאי גיסא אדעתא דדיקלא כולא מחד גיסא אדעתא דחיותא

Samuel said: If a man strips the branches from a date tree, if his purpose is [to improve] the tree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By removing superfluous branches. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> he acquires ownership [by so doing],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this is an act constituting hazakah. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. B bought property from a Gentile which bordered on A's property. Before paying for it, B, to acquire possession, did some digging in the Gentile's yard in the presence of witnesses. After B did so, but before he had paid the money to the Gentile, A constructed apertures for windows in his wall facing the property. Did A acquire rights to window lights?
A. In city property digging is not considered a valid act of possession. Likewise A did not acquire any rights to window lights since a Gentile does not renounce his rights to his property before he receives the money, and the Gentile's property was, therefore, not (res nullis) ownerless. However, before paying money to the Gentile, let B perform a valid act of possession (such as locking a door, fixing or breaking part of the fence, etc.); otherwise A will acquire rights to window lights during the interval between the paying of the money and B's taking formal possession, since during such interval the Gentile's property will be res nullis.
SOURCES: Cr. 63–64; Pr. 28–29; L. 338; Mord. ibid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. B bought property from a Gentile which bordered on A's property. Before paying for it, B, to acquire possession, did some digging in the Gentile's yard in the presence of witnesses. After B did so, but before he had paid the money to the Gentile, A constructed apertures for windows in his wall facing the property. Did A acquire rights to window lights?
A. In city property digging is not considered a valid act of possession. Likewise A did not acquire any rights to window lights since a Gentile does not renounce his rights to his property before he receives the money, and the Gentile's property was, therefore, not (res nullis) ownerless. However, before paying money to the Gentile, let B perform a valid act of possession (such as locking a door, fixing or breaking part of the fence, etc.); otherwise A will acquire rights to window lights during the interval between the paying of the money and B's taking formal possession, since during such interval the Gentile's property will be res nullis.
SOURCES: Cr. 63–64; Pr. 28–29; L. 338; Mord. ibid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse