Bava Batra 100

שניהם ישנן בדין יום או יומים זה מפני שהוא תחתיו וזה מפני שהוא כספו ומספקא ליה אי קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי אי לאו כקנין הגוף דמי וספק נפשות להקל

that the rule of one or two days applies to both of them, to the original owner because the slave is still "under" him, and to the purchaser because he is "his money".' R. Jose is uncertain whether possession of the increment is on a par with possession of the principal or not, and where there is a doubt whether capital punishment should be inflicted the more lenient view is always taken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., where the question is whether the man who smote the slave shall be condemned to death. ');">¹</span>

רבי אלעזר אומר שניהם אינן בדין יום או יומים זה לפי שאינו תחתיו וזה לפי שאינו כספו

'R. Eliezer says that the rule of a day or two days applies to neither; it does not apply to the purchaser because the slave is not 'under' him, nor to the original owner, because he is not 'his Money'.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This can be taken by Amemar as a proof that the wife cannot sell without the husband. It could hardly, however, be taken by him as a proof that where both agree to sell, their action is still void. V. supra p. 207, n. 6. ');">²</span>

ואמר רבא מאי טעמא דרבי אלעזר אמר קרא (שמות כא, כא) לא יוקם כי כספו הוא כספו המיוחד לו:

What, said Raba, is R. Eliezer's reason? Scripture says, He shall not be punished, for he is his money, which implies that he must be entirely his own.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba stresses the word 'his'. ');">³</span>

ולא לאיש חזקה בנכסי אשתו: והאמר רב אשת איש צריכה למחות במאן אילימא באחר והאמר רב אין מחזיקין בנכסי אשת איש אלא לאו בבעל

NOR HAS A HUSBAND <i>HAZAKAH</i> IN THE PROPERTY OF HIS WIFE. But has not Rab said: It is necessary for a married woman to protest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she desires to prevent someone who has occupied her field from obtaining hazakah in it. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבא לעולם בבעל וכגון שחפר בה בורות שיחין ומערות

Now, against whom [does he mean]? Shall I say against [occupation by] an outsider? Did not Rab lay down that one cannot obtain <i>hazakah</i> in the property of a married woman? It must therefore mean against [occupation by] the husband?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This shows that Rab holds that a husband can claim has hazakah in the property of his wife. ');">⁵</span>

והאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אין חזקה לנזקין

— Said Raba: It does indeed mean against [occupation by] the husband, but [Rab refers to the case where] for instance he dug in the field pits, ditches or caves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thereby spoiling the field, which he was not entitled to do unless he was its legal owner. Hence if his wife does not protest against such action, it gives him hazakah. ');">⁶</span>

אימא אין דין חזקה לנזקין

But has not R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: There is no <i>hazakah</i> where damage is inflicted? — This should be read The [ordinary] rule of <i>hazakah</i> does not apply<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'There is no rule of hazakah'. ');">⁷</span>

אי בעית אימא לאו איתמר עלה רב מרי אמר בקוטרא רב זביד אמר בבית הכסא

where damage is inflicted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ordinary rule is that to confer hazakah three years' possession is required, but if the occupier is allowed to damage the field without protest from the owner, this gives him hazakah at once. ');">⁸</span>

רב יוסף אמר לעולם באחר וכגון שאכלה מקצת חזקה בחיי הבעל ושלש לאחר מיתת הבעל מיגו דאי בעי אמר ליה אנא זבינתה מינך כי א"ל נמי את זבינתה ליה וזבנה ניהלי מהימן

(Alternatively I may meet this objection by pointing out that R. Meri gave smoke as an instance of the damage referred to and R. Zebid a privy].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 23a. Other damage, however, such as digging pits, confers hazakah even in the case of a wife's property. ');">⁹</span>

גופא אמר רב אין מחזיקין בנכסי אשת איש

R. Joseph said: Rab in truth [meant his dictum<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is necessary for a married woman to protest. ');">¹⁰</span> to apply] to [occupation by] outsiders,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore there is no contradiction between him and the Mishnah. ');">¹¹</span> and the case [he had in mind] was where a man had had the use of the property for a time in the lifetime of the husband and for three years after his death. [In that case,] seeing that he could put forward the plea, I bought it from you [the wife], if he merely pleads, You sold it to him and he sold it to me, his word is accepted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence if she does not want him to obtain hazakah, she must protest in time. ');">¹²</span> The text above states that Rab said that 'one cannot obtain <i>hazakah</i> in the property of a married woman.'