Bava Batra 75

מתקיף לה רבא ולימא ליה כורכמא דרישקא זביני לך עקור כורכמא דרישקא וזיל אלא אמר רבא בבא מחמת טענה

Raba strongly questioned this ruling, on the ground that the seller can say, 'What I sell you is [sold in the same way as] garden crocus;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which it was customary to uproot after it had ripened, the soil being left to the owner of the field. ');">¹</span> pluck up your garden crocus and be off'? — No, said Raba; this is only the case when he is able to plead so expressly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to say, if he advances this plea, it is accepted (in default of rebutting evidence), even though he has no document to prove it. ');">²</span>

אמר ליה מר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי ואי כורכמא דרישקא זבין ליה מאי הוי ליה למעבד איבעי ליה למחויי

Mar Kashisha the son of R. Hisda said to R. Ashi: If the seller did sell him [the tree in the same way as] a plot of garden crocus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., without making any express stipulation. ');">³</span> what was he to do?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prevent the purchaser after three years affirming that he bought the soil also and wants to plant another. ');">⁴</span>

דאי לא תימא הכי הני משכנתא דסורא דכתב בה הכי במישלם שניא אלין תיפוק ארעא דא בלא כסף אי כביש ליה לשטר משכנתא ואמר לקוחה היא בידי הכי נמי דמהימן מיתקני רבנן מילתא דאתי בה לידי פסידא אלא איבעי ליה למחויי הכא נמי איבעי ליה למחויי:

— He should have lodged a protest within three years. For should you not say so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that such a step is effective. ');">⁵</span> then in the case of the 'mortgage of Sura'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 159, n. 4' ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שלש ארצות לחזקה יהודה ועבר הירדן והגליל היה ביהודה והחזיק בגליל בגליל והחזיק ביהודה אינה חזקה עד שיהא עמו במדינה אחת אמר רבי יהודה לא אמרו שלש שנים אלא כדי שיהא באספמיא ויחזיק שנה ילכו ויודיעוהו שנה ויבא לשנה אחרת:

which stipulates that 'on the termination of these [X] years this land shall be given up without payment,' if the mortgagee suppresses the bond and says that he has bought the land, would his plea indeed be valid? Have the Rabbis then made a regulation through which the mortgager is exposed to unfair loss?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the danger of losing his land. ');">⁷</span> The fact is that he should protect himself by lodging a protest. So here also it is incumbent on him to lodge a protest.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי קסבר ת"ק אי קסבר מחאה שלא בפניו הויא מחאה אפילו יהודה וגליל נמי אי קסבר מחאה שלא בפניו לא הויא מחאה אפילו יהודה ויהודה נמי לא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THERE ARE [IN ERETZ YISRAEL] THREE DISTRICTS [WHICH ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., form self-contained units, as explained in what follows. ');">⁸</span> ] IN THE MATTER OF <i>HAZAKAH</i> — JUDEA, TRANSJORDAN, AND GALILEE. THUS, IF THE OWNER IS IN JUDEA AND THE OCCUPIER IN GALILEE, OR THE OWNER IN GALILEE AND THE OCCUPIER IN JUDEA, THE OCCUPATION DOES NOT CONFER <i>HAZAKAH</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fact of the occupier having had unchallenged possession of the land for three years does not create a presumption that he is the owner. The reason is discussed in the Gemara. ');">⁹</span>

א"ר אבא בר ממל אמר רב לעולם קסבר מחאה שלא בפניו הויא מחאה ומשנתינו בשעת חירום שנו ומ"ש יהודה וגליל דנקיט

IT ONLY DOES SO IF THE OWNER IS IN THE SAME DISTRICT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Judea, Transjordan and Galilee. ');">¹⁰</span> WITH THE OCCUPIER. R. JUDAH SAYS: THE PERIOD IN WHICH OCCUPATION CONFERS <i>HAZAKAH</i> WAS FIXED AT THREE YEARS ONLY IN ORDER THAT IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE WHEN A MAN IS IN SPAIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spain is taken as being the furthest point to which an owner of land in Eretz Yisrael was likely to go. ');">¹¹</span>

הא קא משמע לן

FOR ANOTHER TO OCCUPY HIS FIELD ONE YEAR, AND FOR INFORMATION TO BE BROUGHT TO HIM [WHICH WILL ALSO TAKE] A YEAR, AND FOR HIM TO RETURN HIMSELF, [WHICH WILL TAKE] A THIRD YEAR.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah therefore does not hold that the period of three years was fixed because after that a man is not careful of his title-deed (V. supra 29a), nor does he regard Judea, Transjordan and Galilee as self-contained units in the matter of hazakah. ');">¹²</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is the reason of the first Tanna [on which he bases his ruling]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the three districts are independent. ');">¹³</span> If he holds that a protest raised by the owner not in the presence of the occupier is a valid protest, then [it should be valid] even [if the owner is] in Judea and [the occupier in] Galilee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because someone is sure to convey information of it to the occupier, and he will be careful of his title-deed if he has one. ');">¹⁴</span> If, however, he holds that a protest [raised by the owner] not in the presence of the occupier is not a valid protest, then [it should be equally] invalid even if both are in Judea?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But in different towns. ');">¹⁵</span> — R. Abba b. Memel replied in the name of Rab: The first Tanna is indeed of the opinion that a protest raised [by the owner] not in the presence of the occupier is a valid protest, and our Mishnah was formulated at a time when there were hostilities between Judea and Galilee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence caravans did not travel between them and it was difficult to know in one what was going on in the other. ');">¹⁶</span> Why then are Judea and Galilee particularly specified?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., why should not the Tanna have formulated his ruling thus: 'All districts of Eretz Yisrael are independent units in regard to hazakah when they are not on peaceful terms.' ');">¹⁷</span> — To show us