Bava Batra 83

אינהו אפסידו אנפשייהו

have only themselves to blame.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the sale of the first property was not generally known, they should have enquired whether there was any lien on the property which they bought subsequently. ');">¹</span> But did Rab indeed give this ruling? Have we not learnt [in a Mishnah]: If a man lends money to another on a bond, he may recover his debt even from property on which there is a lien<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because anyone who lent the borrower money or bought from him subsequently ought to have known that there was already a prior claim on him. ');">²</span>

ומי אמר רב הכי והתנן המלוה את חבירו בשטר גובה מנכסים משועבדים ע"י עדים גובה מנכסים בני חורין

[supposing there are no free assets]; if, however, the loan was made only in the presence of witnesses, he may only recover from property on which there is no lien? And should you answer that Rab is himself [considered] a Tanna and may dispute [the ruling of a Mishnah], this can hardly be, since Rab and Samuel have both laid down that a loan [contracted] by word of mouth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the presence of witnesses but without a bond. ');">³</span> cannot be recovered either from the heirs [of the debtor] or from those who have [subsequently] purchased [from him].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is equivalent to saying that it cannot be recovered from property on which there is a lien. ');">⁴</span>

וכי תימא רב תנא הוא ופליג והא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו מלוה על פה אינו גובה לא מן היורשים ולא מן הלקוחות

— Are you arguing from a loan to a sale? When a man borrows money, he does so as secretly as possible, in order that his property may not depreciate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it will if people know that he is pressed for money. ');">⁵</span> If he sells land, however, he does so as publicly as possible, in order that people may know about it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so he may have more offers. Hence there is no contradiction between the two rulings of Rab. ');">⁶</span>

מלוה אזביני קא רמית מלוה כי קא יזיף בצנעא קא יזיף כי היכי דלא ליתזלו נכסיה עליה זביני מאן דזבין ארעא בפרהסיא זבין כי היכי דליפוק לה קלא

Our Rabbis taught: If the father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man who purchased the field. ');">⁷</span> occupies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'eats'. ');">⁸</span>

תנו רבנן אכלה האב שנה והבן שתים האב שתים והבן שנה האב שנה והבן שנה והלוקח שנה הרי זו חזקה

[the field] a year and the son two years, or the father two years and the son one year, or the father one year, the son one year and the purchaser<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man who purchases from the son. ');">⁹</span> one year, such occupation confers a title of ownership. Now this would indicate, would it not, that when a man purchases [a piece of land] it becomes generally known?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because otherwise the original owner can say that he did not think that the last occupier intended to claim the land, and therefore did not trouble to make a protest. ');">¹⁰</span>

למימרא דלוקח אית ליה קלא ורמינהי אכלה בפני האב שנה ובפני הבן שתים בפני האב שתים ובפני הבן שנה בפני האב שנה ובפני הבן שנה ובפני לוקח שנה הרי זו חזקה ואי סלקא דעתך לוקח אית ליה קלא אין לך מחאה גדולה מזו

But this would seem to conflict [with the following]: If a man occupies a field in the lifetime of the father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original owner. ');">¹¹</span> one year and two years in the lifetime of the son, or two years in the lifetime of the father and one year in the lifetime of the son, or one year in the lifetime of the father, one year in the lifetime of the son, and one year in the lifetime of the purchaser,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man who purchases from the son. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב פפא כי תניא ההיא במוכר שדותיו סתם:

such occupation confers a title of ownership. Now if you assume that the purchase [of a piece of land] becomes generally known, surely there can be no protest stronger than this, [that the son has sold the land]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if it is not a protest, the reason must be that it does not become generally known. ');">¹³</span> — R. Papa said: The case of which this passage speaks is where the son sells all his fields without specifying [any one in particular].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in that case the occupier can plead that he understood that the sale did not include the field in question and therefore did not constitute a protest. But if he specifically sells that field, this constitutes a protest, because the sale is bound to come to the knowledge of the occupier, and the occupation therefore confers no title to ownership. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האומנין והשותפין והאריסין והאפוטרופין אין להם חזקה לא לאיש חזקה בנכסי אשתו ולא לאשה חזקה בנכסי בעלה ולא לאב בנכסי הבן ולא לבן בנכסי האב

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. CRAFTSMEN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom articles are taken for repair. ');">¹⁵</span> PARTNERS, METAYERS, AND TRUSTEES HAVE NO <i>HAZAKAH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fact of their being in possession of any piece of (movable) property does not in itself constitute any title to ownership, since it is understood that they are left temporarily in possession of property by the rightful owners. V.I. delete 'craftsmen'. ');">¹⁶</span>

במה דברים אמורים במחזיק אבל בנותן מתנה והאחין שחלקו והמחזיק בנכסי הגר נעל וגדר ופרץ כל שהוא הרי זו חזקה:

A MAN HAS NO <i>HAZAKAH</i> IN THE PROPERTY OF HIS WIFE NOR HAS A WOMAN <i>HAZAKAH</i> IN THE PROPERTY OF HER HUSBAND. A FATHER HAS NO <i>HAZAKAH</i> IN THE PROPERTY OF HIS SON NOR HAS A SON <i>HAZAKAH</i> IN THE PROPERTY OF HIS FATHER. THESE STATEMENTS APPLY ONLY TO CASES [WHERE OWNERSHIP IS CLAIMED] ON THE GROUND OF POSSESSION. IN THE CASE, HOWEVER, WHERE LAND IS PRESENTED AS A GIFT, OR OF BROTHERS DIVIDING AN INHERITANCE, OR OF ONE WHO SEIZES THE PROPERTY OF A PROSELYTE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A proselyte who dies without (Jewish) issue has no heirs, and his property after death falls to the first occupier. ');">¹⁷</span> OWNERSHIP CAN BE CLAIMED AS SOON AS THE FIRST STEP HAS BEEN TAKEN TOWARDS MAKING A DOOR OR A FENCE OR AN OPENING.