Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Shabbat 146:6

אמר רבי אבא החופר גומא בשבת ואינו צריך אלא לעפרה פטור עליה ואפילו לרבי יהודה דאמר מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב עליה ה"מ מתקן האי מקלקל הוא:

R. Joseph said: He who cuts hay is liable to two [penalties], one on account of reaping and the other on account of planting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The hay is cut so that new grass can grow, and thus it is a derivative of planting (i.e., sowing) too. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> Abaye said: He who trims beets [in the ground] is liable to two [penalties], one on account of reaping<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the beets he cuts constitute a harvest. ');"><sup>11</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