Bava Batra 101

ודייני גולה אמרו מחזיקין אמר רב הלכה כדייני גולה אמרו ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב הדר ביה מר משמעתיה אמר להו מסתברא אמרי כדרב יוסף:

The Judges of the Exile,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel and Karna. Thus Rashb.; v. however, San. 17b and note a.l., and cf. infra p. 279 no. 6. ');">¹</span> however, say that one can obtain <i>hazakah</i>. The <i>halachah</i> said Rab, is that of the Judges of the Exile.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [V.L. The view of the Judges of the Exile appears reasonable.] ');">²</span>

ולא לאשה בנכסי בעלה וכו': פשיטא כיון דאית לה מזוני מזוני הוא דקא אכלה לא צריכא דיחד לה ארעא אחריתי למזונה

Thereupon R. Kahana and R. Assi said to him: Does our Master retract his ruling? — He replied: You may suppose I refer to such a case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Another rendering: 'I merely said that it appears reasonable (cf. n. 1) in such a case etc.'] ');">³</span> as that mentioned by R. Joseph.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab did not actually mention R. Joseph, who was several generations after him, but described a similar case to that given by R. Joseph. ');">⁴</span>

הא ראיה יש לימא לגלויי זוזי הוא דבעי

A WIFE HAS NO <i>HAZAKAH</i> IN THE PROPERTY OF HER HUSBAND. Surely this is self-evident; since the husband has to maintain her, [we suppose that when she occupies the field] she is merely deriving her maintenance from it? — The rule had to be stated [to cover the case] where he assigned her another field for her maintenance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case, but for the rule of the Mishnah, I might suppose that three years' occupation would give her hazakah. ');">⁵</span> [Since the Mishnah says only that the wife has no <i>hazakah</i>], we infer that if she brings proof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a deed of sale or witnesses. ');">⁶</span>

שמעת מינה המוכר שדה לאשתו קנתה ולא אמרינן לגלויי זוזי הוא דבעי לא אימא הא ראיה יש בשטר מתנה

[that the field has been sold to her] the sale is valid. But cannot the husband plead against this that he merely desired to see if she had any money?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He suspected that she had money hidden away and wanted to entice her to produce it, but he had no genuine intention of selling her the field. ');">⁷</span> May we then not learn from this [Mishnah] that if a man sells a field to his wife, she becomes the legal owner and we do not say that he merely desired to see if she had any money? — No; we infer [rather] thus: but if she brings a proof it is effective in the case of a deed of gift [though not of a deed of sale].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if she produces a deed of gift, we say that he really has given her the field, for there is no question here of enticing her to produce money. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה רב נחמן לרב הונא לא הוה מר גבן באורתא בתחומא דאמרינן מילי מעלייתא אמר ליה מאי מילי מעלייתא אמריתו המוכר שדה לאשתו קנתה ולא אמרינן לגלויי זוזי הוא דבעי

R. Nahman said to R. Huna: A pity your honour was not with us last night at the boundary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Beth Hamidrash placed two thousand cubits (the limit of a Sabbath walk) from the town, so as to be accessible to the country people (Rashb.). ');">⁹</span> when we drew up an exceptionally fine rule.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we said excellent things'. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ליה פשיטא דל זוזי מהכא ותיקני בשטרא מי לא תנן נכסים שיש להן אחריות נקנין בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה

Said the other: What was this exceptionally fine rule which you drew up? He replied: If a man sells a field to his wife, she becomes the legal owner, and we do not say that he merely desired to see if she had money. Said R. Huna: This is obvious. Take away the money, and she still becomes legal owner by means of the deed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he gives her a deed of sale (without taking money from her), it is obvious that he does not desire to see if she has any money, since she becomes legal owner even without handing over any money (although of course she becomes indebted to him). ');">¹¹</span> For have we not learnt: [Ownership in] landed property is acquired by means of money payment, deed, or <i>hazakah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 26a; infra 86a. The word 'hazakah' here means occupation by means of some action which proclaims ownership, e.g. digging or fencing. ');">¹²</span>

אמר ליה ולאו איתמר עלה אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא בשטר מתנה אבל בשטר מכר לא קנה עד שיתן לו דמיה ולאו מותיב רב המנונא בשטר כיצד כתב לו על הנייר או על החרס אע"פ שאין בו שוה פרוטה שדי מכורה לך שדי קנויה לך הרי זו מכורה ונתונה

But, said R. Nahman, has not the following rider been attached to this [Mishnah]: Samuel said that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That ownership is acquired by a transfer of the deed. ');">¹³</span> was meant to apply only to a deed of gift, but if the deed is one of sale, legal ownership is not acquired until the money payment has been made? And, [rejoined R. Huna] did not R. Hamnuna refute this [by quoting the following]: 'How is property acquired by a deed? Suppose he [the seller] writes on a [piece of] parchment or on a potsherd,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Blau, L. Ehescheidung, 63. renders 'on papyrus or on ostrakon']. ');">¹⁴</span>

ולאו הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה במוכר שדהו מפני רעתה

which in themselves may be worth nothing, My field is hereby sold to you, my field hereby becomes your property, it is effectively sold or given!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 26a. This would show that the deed of sale itself confers ownership, even before the money payment is made. ');">¹⁵</span> — But did not R. Hamnuna counter his own objection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'He raised the objection and he answered it.' ');">¹⁶</span>

(רב ביבי מסיים בה משמיה דרב נחמן) ורב אשי אמר במתנה בקש ליתנה לו ולמה כתב לו בלשון מכר כדי ליפות כחו

by adding: This holds good only where a man sells his field because it is practically worthless?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so the money is of minor consequence, but this is not the case with an ordinary field. ');">¹⁷</span> R. Ashi said: He [the seller referred to above]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah, 'Property&nbsp;… is acquired by money, deed, or hazakah.' ');">¹⁸</span>

מיתיבי לוה מן העבד ושחררו מן האשה וגרשה אין להן עליו כלום מאי טעמא לאו משום דאמרינן לגלויי זוזי הוא דבעי

really meant to transfer his field to the other as a gift, and the reason why he made the transfer in the form of a sale was in order to make the recipient's title more secure.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ashi gives an alternative answer to that given by R. Nahman to the objection raised from this Baraitha. The deed referred to, he says, may be in form one of sale, but even so the land is really given, and the donor by drawing up a deed of sale expresses his readiness to defend the title of the recipient if it should be challenged. In the case of a sale, however, the deed alone does not confer ownership; hence R. Nahman's rule that a man may sell a field to his wife was still necessary. ');">¹⁹</span> An objection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the ruling that if a man sells a field to his wife she becomes the legal owner. ');">²⁰</span>

שאני התם דלא ניחא ליה לשווייה נפשיה (משלי כב, ז) עבד לוה לאיש מלוה

was raised [from the following]: If a man borrows money from his slave and then emancipates him, or from his wife and then divorces her, they have no claim against him [for the money so lent].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he gave them a bond on his property. ');">²¹</span> What is the reason for this? Is it not because we say that his object [in borrowing] was only to see if they had any money? These cases are different,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in these cases it is legitimate to assume that he only wanted to see if they had any money, which he, as master or husband, was at liberty to appropriate. ');">²²</span>

שלח רב הונא בר אבין המוכר שדה לאשתו קנתה

because [we presume that] a man would not readily place himself in the position of 'a borrower who is a servant to the lender.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Prov. XXII, 7. Hence if we can find any other explanation of his action we adopt it. ');">²³</span> R. Huna b. Abin sent [the following message:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylonia. ');">²⁴</span> 'If a man sells a field to his wife, she becomes the legal owner,