Bava Batra 71

לדידי אמר לי עכו"ם דמינך זבנה מהימן מי איכא מידי דאילו עכו"ם אמר לא מהימן ואילו אמר ישראל משמיה דעכו"ם מהימן

'The non-Jew said to me that he had bought it from you,' his plea is accepted. [But] can it be possible that a plea which would not be accepted if put forward by a non-Jew<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, as stated above, the non-Jew can only prove his right by producing the deed of sale. ');">¹</span> should be accepted if put forward by a Jew in the name of a non-Jew? Raba therefore corrected himself as follows: If the Jew pleads, 'The non-Jew bought it from you in my presence and sold it to me,' his plea is accepted, because if he had liked he could have brought against him [without fear of contradiction the still stronger plea], 'I myself bought it from you.'

אלא אמר רבא אי אמר ישראל קמי דידי זבנה עכו"ם מינך וזבנה ניהלי מהימן מיגו דאי בעי א"ל אנא זבינתה מינך

Rab Judah further said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra 33b. ');">²</span> If a man takes a knife and a rope and says, 'I am going to gather the fruit from so-and-so's date tree which I have bought from him, 'his statement is accepted, because a man would not ordinarily presume to gather the fruit from a tree which does not belong to him. Rab Judah further said: If a man occupies the strip of another man's field outside of the 'wild animals' fence,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In fields adjoining woods it was customary to make a fence a little within the border of the field and to throw seeds on the strip outside, so that the animals from the wood should eat what grew from these and not seek to penetrate within the fence. ');">³</span>

ואמר רב יהודה האי מאן דנקיט מגלא ותובליא ואמר איזיל איגזרה לדקלא דפלניא דזבנתיה מיניה מהימן לא חציף איניש למיגזר דקלא דלאו דיליה

this does not constitute a <i>hazakah</i>, because the owner can say, [The reason why I did not protest was because] whatever he sows, the wild animals eat up. Rab Judah further said: If he ate thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The field he occupied. ');">⁴</span> [only] 'uncircumcised' produce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Orlah; Lev. XIX, 23, 24. When ye come to the land and plant trees for food, ye shall count the food thereof as uncircumcised; three years it shall be as uncircumcised unto you; it shall not be eaten of. ');">⁵</span>

ואמר רב יהודה האי מאן דאחזיק מגודא דערודי ולבר לא הוי חזקה מאי טעמא מימר אמר כל דזרע נמי ערודי אכלי ליה

this does not count towards the three years of <i>hazakah</i>. It has also been taught to the same effect: If he takes from it only 'uncircumcised' produce, the produce of 'mingled seed',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kila'im; v. Lev. XIX, 29; Deut. XXII, 9. ');">⁶</span> or the produce of the Sabbatical year,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Orlah and Kila'im are prohibited; the produce of the Sabbatical year was common property. Hence the owner would not trouble to protest in these ');">⁷</span>

ואמר רב יהודה אכלה ערלה אינה חזקה תניא נמי הכי אכלה ערלה שביעית וכלאים אינה חזקה

this does not confer <i>hazakah</i>. R. Joseph said: If he takes from the field immature produce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To feed cattle with. ');">⁸</span> this does not confer <i>hazakah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because by such a proceeding the occupier seemed to show that he was conscious that the field did not belong to him, and therefore the owner would not trouble to protest. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רב יוסף אכלה שחת לא הוי חזקה אמר רבא ואי בצואר מחוזא קיימא הוי חזקה

If, however-added Raba-the field is in the 'neck of Mahuza',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A fertile valley in the district of Mahuza where it was customary to do this, because corn was so abundant that it paid to feed cattle with it. ');">¹⁰</span> this does confer <i>hazakah</i>. R. Nahman said: The occupation of land which is full of cracks does not confer <i>hazakah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such land being practically barren. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב נחמן תפתיחא לא הוי חזקה אפיק כורא ועייל כורא לא הוי חזקה

If the land yields no more than is sown In it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if he takes out a kor (of seed) and brings in a kor (of produce).' ');">¹²</span> its occupation does not confer <i>hazakah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is not worth the owner's while to protest. ');">¹³</span>

והני דבי ריש גלותא לא מחזקי בן ולא מחזקינן בהו:

Members of the Exilarch's house do not obtain <i>hazakah</i> through occupation of our fields,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the ordinary man is afraid to protest against the occupation. ');">¹⁴</span> nor do we obtain <i>hazakah</i> through occupation of theirs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because knowing that they are able to take forcible possession whenever they please, they do not trouble to protest. ');">¹⁵</span>

והעבדים וכו': עבדים יש להם חזקה והאמר ר"ל הגודרות אין להן חזקה אמר רבא אין להן חזקה לאלתר אבל יש להן חזקה לאחר ג' שנים

AND SLAVES etc. Is there then a presumptive title to slaves? Has not Resh Lakish laid down that 'there is no presumptive title to living creatures?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'those kept in the folds', i.e., young animals, because they are liable to stray. ');">¹⁶</span> — Said Raba: [What Resh Lakish meant is that] there is no presumptive title in regard to them immediately, but there is after three years' possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in this respect living things differ from inanimate, possession of which confers presumptive right immediately, on the presumption that 'whatever a man holds is his'. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבא אם היה קטן מוטל בעריסה יש לו חזקה לאלתר פשיטא לא צריכא דאית ליה אימא מהו דתימא ניחוש דלמא אימיה עיילתיה להתם קמ"ל אימא לא מנשיא ברא

Raba further said: If the slave is an infant in a cradle, presumptive right to it is conferred immediately.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the child could not have got into the house by itself; hence the presumption is that it was bought from the previous owner. ');">¹⁸</span> Surely this is self-evident? — It required to be stated on account of the case where the child has a mother. You might think in that case that there is a chance that the mother brought it into the house where It now is [and left it there]. [Raba therefore] tells us that a mother does not forget her child.

הנהו עיזי דאכלו חושלא בנהרדעא אתא מרי חושלא תפסינהו והוה קא טעין טובא אמר אבוה דשמואל יכול לטעון עד כדי דמיהן דאי בעי אמר לקוחות הן בידי והאמר ר"ל הגודרות אין להן חזקה שאני עיזי דמסירה לרועה

Some goats [went into a field] in Nehardea [and] ate some peeled barley [which they found there]. The owner of the barley went and seized them, and made a heavy claim on the owner of the goats.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he asserted that the goats had eaten barley to a much greater value than their own. ');">¹⁹</span> The father of Samuel said: He can claim up to the value of the goats, because if he likes he can plead that the goats themselves are his by purchase.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he asserted that the goats belonged to him, his plea would be valid (in default of rebutting evidence). Hence, in default of further evidence on either side, he can claim compensation up to the value of the goats. ');">²⁰</span>

והא איכא צפרא ופניא בנהרדעא טייעי שכיחי ומידא לידא משלמי:

[But surely] Resh Lakish has said that there is no <i>hazakah</i> to living things? Goats are an exception, because they are entrusted to a goatherd.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore if they are found in another man's property, it is presumed that he has bought them. ');">²¹</span> But they are left to themselves morning and evening?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the morning when they go by themselves from their owners to the goatherd, and in the evening when they go back by themselves from the goatherd to the owners. ');">²²</span>

ר' ישמעאל אומר שלשה חדשים וכו': לימא ניר איכא בינייהו דרבי ישמעאל סבר ניר לא הוי חזקה ורבי עקיבא סבר ניר הוי חזקה

— In Nehardea thieves abound, and the goats are delivered from hand to hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the owners to the goatherds and vice-versa, and therefore have no chance to stray. ');">²³</span> R. ISHMAEL SAYS, THREE MONTHS etc. May we say that the actual difference [between R. Ishmael<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who requires a minimum of eighteen months. V. supra 28a. ');">²⁴</span>

ותסברא לרבי עקיבא מאי איריא חודש

and R. Akiba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who requires a minimum of fourteen months. ');">²⁵</span> ] is in regard to ploughing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one ploughed the field without sowing. ');">²⁶</span> R. Ishmael holding that ploughing does not help to confer <i>hazakah</i> and R. Akiba that it does? — If this were the case, why should R. Akiba require a month