Bava Batra 106

לקנות אותה ואת חברתה אותה קנה חברתה לא קנה לקנות את חברתה אף אותה לא קנה

if with the idea of becoming owner of both, he becomes owner of that one but not of the other;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the boundary makes them two distinct fields. ');">¹</span> if with the idea of becoming owner of the other, he does not acquire ownership even of that one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he cannot acquire ownership without the deliberate intention of doing so. ');">²</span>

בעי רבי זירא החזיק באחת מהן לקנות אותה ואת המצר ואת חברתה מהו מי אמרינן מצר דארעא חד הוא וקני או דלמא האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי תיקו

R. Zera put the following question: Suppose he takes possession of one of them with the idea of becoming owner of that one and of the boundary and of the other one, how do we decide? Do we say that the boundary goes with this field and with that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the boundary of the land is one'. Rashb. reads: 'The boundary belongs to this field and to that.' The meaning is that if the boundary goes with the field, his intention to acquire the boundary secures him the boundary, and his acquisition of the boundary secures him the second field, with which it also goes. ');">³</span> and so he acquires the whole, or do we say that the boundary and the fields are separate?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he acquires only the first field, and not the boundary. ');">⁴</span>

בעי רבי אלעזר החזיק במצר לקנות שתיהן מהו מי אמרינן האי מצר אפסרא דארעא הוא וקני או דלמא האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי תיקו

This question must stand over. R. Eleazar put the question: Suppose he takes possession of the boundary with the idea of becoming owner of both fields, how do we decide? Do we say that the boundary is as it were the bridle of the land<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man buys ten animals and takes hold of the bridle of one, he becomes the owner of all ten (Kid. 27b). If then we compare the boundary to a bridle, possession of it should confer ownership of both fields. ');">⁵</span>

א"ר נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה שני בתים זה לפנים מזה החזיק בחיצון לקנותו קנאו לקנות אותו ואת הפנימי חיצון קנה פנימי לא קנה לקנות את הפנימי אף חיצון נמי לא קנה

and so he acquires ownership, or are boundary and field separate? — This question [also] must stand over. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: If there are [in a house] two rooms, one of which can only be reached through the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one within the other'. ');">⁶</span>

החזיק בפנימי לקנותו קנאו לקנות אותו ואת החיצון קנה שניהן לקנות את החיצון אף פנימי לא קנה

then if a man takes possession of the outer room with the idea of becoming its owner, he acquires ownership of it; if with the idea of becoming owner of both rooms, he acquires ownership of the outer room but not of the inner one; if with the idea of becoming owner of the inner room, he does not acquire ownership even of the outer one. If he takes possession of the inner one with the idea of becoming its owner, he acquires ownership of that one; if with the idea of becoming owner of both, he does acquire ownership of both;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the right of way from the inner room through the outer makes the latter subsidiary to the former. ');">⁷</span> if with the idea of becoming owner of the outer one [only], he does not acquire ownership even of the inner one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 218, n. 5. ');">⁸</span>

א"ר נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה הבונה פלטרין גדולים בנכסי הגר ובא אחר והעמיד להן דלתות קנה מאי טעמא קמא לבני בעלמא הוא דאפיך

R. Nahman further said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: If a man builds a large villa on the estate of a [deceased] proselyte and another man comes and fixes the doors, the latter becomes owner. Why is this? Because the first one merely deposited bricks there.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., so long as the building is not completed, it is regarded merely as a heap of bricks. ');">⁹</span> R. Dimi b. Joseph said in the name of R. Eleazar: If a man finds a villa already erected on the estate of a [deceased] proselyte, and he adds one coat of whitewash or mural decoration, he acquires ownership.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he has done something to improve the building. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב דימי בר יוסף א"ר אלעזר המוצא פלטרין בנכסי הגר וסד בהן סיוד אחד או כיור אחד קנאן וכמה אמר רב יוסף אמה אמר רב חסדא וכנגד הפתח

How much must he whitewash or decorate? R. Joseph says: A cubit. To which R. Hisda added: And it must be by the door.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it will have its maximum effect; otherwise more than a cubit would be necessary. ');">¹¹</span> R. Amram said: The following dictum was enunciated to us by R. Shesheth, and he showed us the proof of it from a Baraitha:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he enlightened our eyes from a Baraitha.' ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב עמרם האי מילתא אמר לן רב ששת ואנהרינהו עינין ממתניתא המציע מצעות בנכסי הגר קנה ואנהרינהו עינין ממתניתא מאי היא דתניא כיצד בחזקה נעל לו מנעלו או התיר לו מנעלו או שהוליך כליו אחריו לבית המרחץ והפשיטו והרחיצו סכו גרדו והלבישו והנעילו והגביהו קנאו אמר ר"ש לא תהא חזקה גדולה מהגבהה שהגבהה קונה בכל מקום

If a man spreads mattresses on the floor of a proselyte's estate [and sleeps on it], he thereby acquires ownership.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, although he does not improve the estate in any way, he derives some service from it. ');">¹³</span> How did he 'show proof of this from a Baraitha'? — [By citing the following passage] which has been taught: How is ownership [of a slave] acquired by 'taking possession'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule is that ownership of a slave (as of land) is acquired by the handing over of money or of a deed, or by 'taking possession' (hazakah). ');">¹⁴</span>

מאי קאמר הכי קאמר הגביהו לרבו קנאו הגביה רבו לו לא קנאו אמר ר"ש לא תהא חזקה גדולה מהגבהה שהגבהה קונה בכל מקום

If the slave fastens or undoes his master's shoe, or carries his clothes behind him to the bath, or undresses him, washes him, anoints him, scrapes him, dresses him, puts his shoes on<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This follows naturally on 'dresses him' though it has already been mentioned once. ');">¹⁵</span> or lifts him up, he becomes his owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And R. Shesheth compares the ground to a slave in the matter of service. ');">¹⁶</span>

א"ר ירמיה ביראה אמר רב יהודה האי מאן

R. Simeon said: possession of this kind cannot be more effective than lifting up, seeing that it confers ownership in all cases. What does this mean? — We must understand the passage thus: If the slave lifts his master up, the latter acquires possession, but if his master lifts him up, he does not. R. Simeon said: possession cannot be more effective than lifting, seeing that it confers ownership in all cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man buys an article and lifts it up, he immediately becomes owner, even if he is on ground belonging to the seller, whereas if he merely pulled it towards him (v. infra 76b), he would not in this case thereby become owner. Hence R. Simeon says that if the master lifts up the slave, this action also confers ownership. ');">¹⁷</span> R. Jeremiah Bira'ah said in the name of Rab Judah: If a man