Bava Batra 93

Chapter 93

א קבלן אמרי לה מעיד ואמרי לה אינו מעיד אמרי לה מעיד כערב דמי ואמרי לה אינו מעיד דניחא ליה דלהוו בידיה תרוייהו דכי אתי בע"ח מאי דבעי שקיל
1 In regard to a go-between,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., 'receiver': a man who receives money from a lender to convey to a borrower on condition that the lender may recover from either at his option. The 'areb (surety), on the other hand becomes liable only if the borrower has failed to pay. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> some say that he may testify [on behalf of the borrower] and some say that he may not. Those who say that he may testify regard him as being on the same footing as a surety, whereas those who say that he may not [consider] that he prefers fields of both qualities<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., both medium and inferior quality. The rule was that a creditor was entitled to recover from land of medium quality (v. B.K. 7b). ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אמר רבי יוחנן אומן אין לו חזקה בן אומן יש לו חזקה אריס אין לו חזקה בן אריס יש לו חזקה גזלן ובן גזלן אין להן חזקה בן בנו של גזלן יש לו חזקה
2 to be in the hands of the borrower, so that the creditor can have the choice of seizing from either.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the borrower's medium-quality land is claimed and he loses his case, then the creditor will certainly come on to the go-between for his money, whereas if he keeps his land the creditor still has the choice of distraining either on him or on the go-between. Hence the go-between has an interest in the borrower keeping his land, and therefore must not testify on his behalf. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> R. Johanan said: A craftsman has no <i>hazakah</i>, but the son of a craftsman has <i>hazakah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the father dies and he inherits him. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג היכי דמי אי אתו בטענתא דאבוהון אפילו הנך נמי לא אי דלא אתו בטענתא דאבוהון אפילו בן גזלן נמי
3 A metayer has no <i>hazakah</i>, but the son of a metayer has <i>hazakah</i>. Neither a robber nor the son of a robber has <i>hazakah</i>, but the grandson of a robber has <i>hazakah</i>. How are we to interpret this? If [we suppose that] they base their title [solely] on [the possession of] their father, then the son of a craftsman and the son of a metayer should also not have <i>hazakah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because their title is no better than their father's. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> If again they do not base their title on [the possession of] their fathers [but on claims of their own].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if they plead. 'I bought it from the claimant.' ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד לא צריכא דקא אמרי עדים בפנינו הודה לו הנך איכא למימר קושטא קא אמרי האי אע"ג דאודי נמי לא מהימן כדרב כהנא דאמר רב כהנא אי לאו דאודי ליה הוה ממטי ליה ולחמריה לשחוור
4 then the son of a robber should also [have <i>hazakah</i>]? — [They do base their title on the possession of their fathers], and our rule applies to the case where witnesses declare: The claimant admitted to him [the father] in our presence [that he had sold the land to him].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. points out that in such a case there is no need of hazakah, and therefore reads, 'where they (the various sons) declare: In our presence etc. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> In the case of the others [the son of the craftsman and the metayer and the grandson of the robber] the presumption is that they are telling the truth, but in the case of the son of the robber, even though he [the claimant] admits [he sold it to [the father] we do not believe him, on the ground put forward by R. Kahana, that if he did not admit this, the other would hand him and his ass over to the town prefect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The officer who imposed compulsory service or socage on the inhabitants. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה אמר רבא פעמים שאפילו בן בנו של גזלן נמי אין לו חזקה היכי דמי כגון דקא אתי בטענתא דאבא דאבוה
5 Raba said: There are occasions when even the grandson of a robber also has no <i>hazakah</i>, as for instance when he bases his title on the possession of his grandfather. What sort of man is meant here by 'robber'? — R. Johanan said: One, for instance, who is generally presumed to have obtained the field under consideration by robbery.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore he can have no hazakah in this field, but he may have it in other fields. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> R. Hisda said: Those like the people of a certain family we know who do not shrink from committing murder to extort money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence people are afraid to protest against their occupation of their fields, and the occupation therefore confers no hazakah. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו היכי דמי גזלן אמר רבי יוחנן כגון שהוחזק על שדה זו בגזלנותא ורב חסדא אמר כגון דבית פלוני שהורגין נפשות על עסקי ממון:
6 Our Rabbis taught: A craftsman has no <i>hazakah</i>, but if he abandons his trade he has <i>hazakah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in articles which were entrusted to him while he was still a craftsman, if he keeps them for an unusual length of time. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> A metayer has no <i>hazakah</i>, but if he ceases to be a metayer he has <i>hazakah</i>. A son who leaves [his father's roof]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., to marry. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ז תנו רבנן אומן אין לו חזקה ירד מאומנותו יש לו חזקה אריס אין לו חזקה ירד מאריסותו יש לו חזקה בן שחלק ואשה שנתגרשה הרי הן כשאר כל אדם
7 and a woman when divorced are on the same footing as strangers [in relation to the father or husband].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra p. 281 where it is laid down that a father has no hazakah in the property of his son nor a husband in the property of his wife, and vice versa. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> [Why mention this?] It is true that for specifying the rule about the son who leaves his father's roof I can find a reason, since I might think that [we presume the father] to have tacitly consented [to his occupying the land],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore he made no protest, but this does not constitute any hazakah for the son. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ח בשלמא בן שחלק איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא אחולי אחיל גביה קמ"ל דלא אלא אשה שנתגרשה פשיטא לא צריכא
8 but now I know that this is not so. But that the divorced woman [becomes a stranger to her former husband]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they presumably are hostile to each other, and therefore are not likely to have allowed their land to be occupied by the other without protest. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> is surely self-evident? — No. The rule is required
Previous ChapterNext Chapter