Bava Batra 56

ואידך כי לא נגח מאי לשלם הכא כיון דאכלה תלת שני קיימא לה ברשותיה

but until it has gored the fourth time there is no reason why the owner should pay, whereas here, as soon as the use of it has been enjoyed for three years, the property becomes the fixed possession of the holder.

אלא מעתה חזקה שאין עמה טענה תיהוי חזקה אלמה תנן כל חזקה שאין עמה טענה אינה חזקה

Now if this is correct<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here follows a further objection against the analogy from the goring ox. ');">¹</span>

טעמא מאי דאמרינן דלמא כדקאמר השתא איהו לא טעין אנן ליטעון ליה

[that the law of <i>hazakah</i> is derived from the law of the ox], it would follow that three years' possession would confer a legal title even without a plea [of justification].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., that the holder bought it from the claimant, but has lost the deed. V. infra 41a. ');">²</span>

מתקיף לה רב עוירא אלא מעתה מחאה שלא בפניו לא תיהוי מחאה דומיא דשור מועד מה שור המועד בפניו בעינן אף הכא נמי בפניו בעינן

Why then have we learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 49a. ');">³</span>

התם (שמות כא, כט) והועד בבעליו כתיב הכא חברך חברא אית ליה וחברא דחברך חברא אית ליה

that possession without a plea of justification does not confer a legal title? — The reason why [we confirm the holder in possession when he pleads justification] is because it is possible that his plea is truthful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as he says now', E.g., if the claimant says, 'You stole it from me,' and the holder says, 'I bought it from you,' the fact that he has had the use of the land for three years creates a presumption that he is speaking the truth. ');">⁴</span>

ולר"מ דאמר ריחק נגיחותיו חייב קירב נגיחותיו לא כ"ש אכלה תלתא פירי בחד יומא כגון תאנה ליהוי חזקה

But if he himself advances no plea, shall we put in a plea for him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the fact that a plea of justification is required does not militate against deriving the law of hazakah from that of the ox, ');">⁵</span>

דומיא דשור המועד מה שור המועד בעידנא דאית ליה הא נגיחה ליתא להא נגיחה הכא נמי בעידנא דאיתא להאי פירא ליתא להאי פירא

R. 'Awira brought a strong objection against this analogy [between the field and the ox]. On this principle, he said, a protest made not in the presence of the holder should not be valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the rule is that it is valid. V. infra 39a. ');">⁶</span>

אכלה תלתא פרי (בתלתא יומי) כגון צלף ליהוי חזקה התם פירא מיהא איתיה ומגמר הוא דקא גמר ואזיל

after the analogy of the <i>Mu'ad</i> ox; for just as in the case of the <i>Mu'ad</i> ox [the warning] must be given in the presence of the owner, so here the protest should be made in the presence of the holder? — There [in the case of the ox] Scripture says, And it hath been testified to his owner';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 29, implying 'in the presence of the owner'. ');">⁷</span>

אכלה תלתא פירי בתלתין יומי כגון אספסתא ליהוי חזקה היכי דמי דקדיח ואכלה דקדיח ואכלה התם משמט הוא דקא שמיט ואכיל

here [in the case of property] 'your friend has a friend, and the friend of your friend has a friend.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A popular saying. Someone is bound to tell the holder that the claimant has protested against his occupation of the land, and he will therefore take care not to lose his title-deed. ');">⁸</span>

אכלה תלתא פירי בתלתא ירחי כגון אספסתא ליהוי חזקה מאן הולכי אושא ר' ישמעאל לר' ישמעאל הכי נמי

Now [suppose we accept the ruling] according to R. Meir, who said: 'If there was an interval between the gorings the owner is liable, all the more so then if they followed closely on one another.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir uses this a fortiori argument in support of his view against that of R. Judah who defines a Mu'ad, 'an ox who gored on three successive days but not who gored three times in one day,' v, B.K. 24a. ');">⁹</span>

דתנן רבי ישמעאל אומר בד"א בשדה הלבן אבל בשדה אילן כנס את תבואתו ומסק את זיתיו וכנס את קייצו הרי אלו ג' שנים

[On the analogy of this], if a man gathered three crops on one day, as for instance figs [in three stages of ripeness]. this should constitute presumptive right, [should it not]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this is against all authority. ');">¹⁰</span>

לרבנן מאי

— No; the action must be strictly analogous to the case of the <i>Mu'ad</i> ox. Just as in the case of the <i>Mu'ad</i> ox at the time when the first goring took place there was as yet no second goring, so here at the time when the first fruit is plucked the second must not yet be in existence. But suppose he gathered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'ate'. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב יוסף קרא כתיב (ירמיהו לב, מד) שדות בכסף יקנו וכתוב בספר וחתום שהרי נביא עומד בעשר ומזהיר על אחת עשרה

three crops in three days, as of a caperbush,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One fruit of which is still very small when another is plucked. ');">¹²</span>

א"ל אביי דלמא התם עצה טובה קמ"ל

should not that confer presumptive right? — In this case also the [second] fruit exists already [when he gathers the first crop] and it merely goes on ripening. But suppose he gathered three crops in thirty days, as of clover<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is cropped three times in a month. ');">¹³</span> — should not this confer presumptive right? How exactly do you mean? That it is cropped as it grows? Then this is merely partial eating<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he merely plucks and eats it.' ');">¹⁴</span> [and not the full eating required to confer presumptive right]. But suppose then that he consumed three crops in three months, as of clover,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is plucked up and sown afresh every month, so that all three crops have time to ripen fully. ');">¹⁵</span> should not this confer presumptive right? — Who is meant by the 'Rabbis who attended Usha'? — R. Ishmael;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We do not hear of R. Ishmael after the war of Bether, so he probably attended the Sanhedrin at Usha in the early part of the 2nd century C.E. As R. Johanan was not born till the later part of the century, he could hardly have known R. Ishmael personally. Perhaps we should translate above: 'I heard from those who attended (the Synod) at Usha that (those who attended the Sanhedrin there in the previous generation) used to say, etc.' ');">¹⁶</span> and this actually would be the view of R. Ishmael, as we have learnt: R. ISHMAEL SAYS: THIS REFERS ONLY TO A CORNFIELD, BUT IN A FIELD PLANTED WITH TREES, IF A MAN HARVESTS HIS GRAPES, GATHERS IN HIS OLIVES, AND HARVESTS HIS FIGS, THIS COUNTS AS THREE YEARS. And whence do the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who do not accept it. Ishmael's view that the rule of hazakah is derived from that of the ox. ');">¹⁷</span> derive the rule [that three years possession confers presumptive right]? — R. Joseph said: They derive it from the Scriptural verse, Men shall buy fields for money and subscribe the deeds and seal them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XXXII, 44. ');">¹⁸</span> For there the prophet is speaking in the tenth year [of Zedekiah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ibid. 1. ');">¹⁹</span> and he warns the people [that they will go into captivity] in the eleventh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ibid. XXXIX, 2. As they will thus not have the use of the fields for more than two years, he warns them to be careful of their title-deeds. ');">²⁰</span> Said Abaye to him: perhaps he was merely giving a piece of good advice?