Gittin 116

תניא כוותיה דשמואל ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר לקח מן האשה וחזר ולקח מן האיש מקחו קיים מן האיש וחזר ולקח מן האשה מקחו בטל עד שתכתוב לו אחריות

It has been taught in agreement with Samuel: 'R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: If a man buys [a married woman's property] from the wife and then buys it again from the husband, his purchase is effective. But if he first buys from the husband and then from the wife the purchase is invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., apparently, even if she gives him a written deed. ');">¹</span>

נימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב אמר לך רב מאי אחריות נמי שטר

unless she expressly makes herself responsible.' Are we to say that this confutes Rab's view? — Rab can answer you: What is meant by 'making herself responsible'? Giving a written deed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without a guarantee of reimbursement. ');">²</span>

ת"ר לקח מן הסיקריקון ואכלה שלש שנים בפני בעלים וחזר ומכרה לאחר אין לבעלים על לוקח שני כלום

Our Rabbis have taught: If a man bought [property] from the sicaricon and had the use of it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he ate'. ');">³</span>

ה"ד אי דקא טעין ואמר מינך זבנה אפילו ראשון נמי אי דלא קא טעין ואמר מינך זבנה אפילו שני נמי לא

for three years in the presence of the original owner,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without him protesting. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רב ששת לעולם דלא קא טעין ליה וכגון זה טוענין ליורש וטוענין ללוקח

and then sold it to another, the original owner has no claim against the [second] purchaser. How are we to understand this? If the [second] purchaser pleads, He bought it from you,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the onus probandi would be on the claimant. ');">⁵</span>

ואידך אי טעין אין ואי לא טעין לא:

the rule would be the same in the case of the first [purchaser].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this plea would be valid in the mouth of the first purchaser, and a fortiori in that of the second. Why then was not the rule stated in connection with the first? ');">⁶</span>

ת"ר הבא מחמת חוב ומחמת אנפרות אין בו משום סיקריקון ואנפרות עצמה צריכה שתשהה שנים עשר חדש

If he does plead, He bought it from you, then the rule does not apply to the second either?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the principle that, to confer usucaption, occupation, even if unchallenged, must be supported by a plea of right. V. B.B. 41a. ');">⁷</span>

והאמרת אין בה משום סיקריקון ה"ק סיקריקון עצמה צריכה שתשהה י"ב חדש

— R. Shesheth said: We do in fact assume that he does not advance this plea, [and yet the rule applies] because in a case like this we [the <i>Beth din</i>] suggest a plea to the heir and suggest a plea to the purchaser;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the ground that they were not likely to know whether the first had in fact purchased it or not. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב יוסף נקטינן אין אנפרות בבבל והא קחזינן דאיכא אלא אימא אין דין אנפרות בבבל מ"ט כיון דאיכא בי דוואר ולא אזיל קביל אימא אחולי אחיל

whereas the first if he pleads [of his own accord] can acquire a title, but otherwise not.

גידל בר רעילאי קביל ארעא בטסקא מבני באגא אקדים ויהיב זוזי דתלת שנין לסוף אתא מרוותא קמאי אמרו ליה שתא קמייתא דיהבת אכלת השתא אנן יהבינן אנן אכלינן

Our Rabbis have taught: 'If [a heathen] seizes the land<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he who comes'. ');">⁹</span>

אתו לקמיה דרב פפא סבר למיכתב ליה טירפא אבני באגא א"ל רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב פפא א"כ עשית סיקריקון אלא אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע הניח מעותיו על קרן הצבי:

[of an Israelite] on account of a debt or of an anparuth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A debt payable by instalments, v. supra 44a. ');">¹⁰</span>

זו משנה ראשונה ב"ד של אחריהן אמרו הלוקח מן הסיקריקון נותן לבעלים רביע: אמר רב רביע בקרקע או רביע במעות ושמואל אמר רביע בקרקע שהן שליש במעות

this rule of sicaricon does not apply to it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he retains it for twelve months and then sells it to a Jew, the purchaser cannot be quit of the original owner by giving him merely a quarter, but he has to return him the whole, since he has never waived his title. [Trani reverses: The original owner has no claim to the field since he could have redeemed it, or in the case of anparuth recovered it at court (v. infra) and therefore it is to be assumed that he waived his right to the field. This interpretation is more in keeping with the reading, 'the rule of sicaricon does not apply', which varies but slightly from that of the Mishnah, whereas in Rashi's interpretation it is taken in a different sense.] ');">¹¹</span>

במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר נכי רביע זבין ומ"ס נכי חומשא זבין

[and land seized] on account of anparuth must remain in his hands twelve months.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently, as in the case of the sicaricon. ');">¹²</span>

מיתיבי זו משנה ראשונה ב"ד של אחריהן אמרו הלוקח מן הסיקריקון נותן לבעלים רביע ויד בעלים על העליונה רצו בקרקע נוטלין רצו במעות נוטלין אימתי בזמן שאין בידן ליקח אבל יש בידן ליקח הן קודמין לכל אדם

But you just said that the rule of sicaricon does not apply to it? — What he means is, [Land bought from] the sicaricon itself must remain in his hands twelve months.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it can be sold to a Jew. ');">¹³</span>

רבי הושיב ב"ד ונמנו שאם שהתה בפני סיקריקון שנים עשר חודש כל הקודם ליקח זכה אבל נותן לבעלים רביע בקרקע או רביע במעות

R. Joseph said: I have authority for saying that there is no anparuth in Babylonia. But we see that there is? — You should say, the law of anparuth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the purchaser has to restore the land gratis to the original owner. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב אשי כי תניא ההיא לאחר שבאו מעות לידו אמר רב

does not apply in Babylonia. Why so? — Since there is a Court and yet [the victim] does not go and complain, we presume that he has waived his claim. Giddal son of Re'ilai took a field<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owners of which had gone away. ');">¹⁵</span> from the owners of a certain stretch<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who were assessed for the land-tax jointly. ');">¹⁶</span> on condition of paying the tax on it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the pro rata share of that field. ');">¹⁷</span> He paid in advance the money for three years. The first owners eventually<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After one year. ');">¹⁸</span> came back and said to him: You paid the tax for the first year and have had the produce. Now we will pay and I will have the produce. They appealed to R. Papa, who was minded to make him out a warrant against the owners of the stretch.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the two years' tax which he had paid in advance. ');">¹⁹</span> R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, however, said to R. Papa: This will mean applying the law of sicaricon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [By making the other owners pay him, just as the purchaser of a field from the sicaricon pays the original owner a quarter; and this is not right, since there is no question of sicaricon here, as no one forced him to pay three years' tax in advance.] ');">²⁰</span> No, said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua; he has risked his money and lost.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he has put his money on the horn of the deer', an expression used for a risky speculation. ');">²¹</span> THIS WAS THE FIRST MISHNAH. THE SUCCEEDING <i>BETH DIN</i> RULED THAT ONE WHO BUYS FROM THE SICARICON SHOULD GIVE THE ORIGINAL OWNER A QUARTER. Rab said: This means either a quarter in land or a quarter In money;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [That is, the quarter of the purchase price is repaid to the original owner either in land or in money (v. Tosaf.).] ');">²²</span> Samuel said: It means a quarter in land,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A quarter of the field bought. ');">²³</span> which is [equivalent to] a third of the money. What is the ground of their difference? — One [Samuel] holds that he buys the land for a quarter less than its value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he buys land which is worth four manehs for three manehs. Hence a quarter of the value of the land is equal to a third of the purchase price. ');">²⁴</span> and the other that he buys the land for a fifth less than its value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he buys land which is worth five manehs for four manehs. Hence he returns either a fifth of the land which is the equivalent of the quarter of the purchase price, or one maneh. ');">²⁵</span> An objection was raised: 'This was the first Mishnah. The succeeding <i>Beth din</i> laid down that one who purchases from the sicaricon gives to the original owner a fourth, the latter having his choice of taking the payment either in land or in money. When is this the case? So long as he is not himself in a position to buy. But if the original owner is in a position to buy, he has the right of pre-emption. Rabbi assembled a <i>Beth din</i> and they decided by vote that if the property had been in the hands of the sicaricon twelve months the first comer had the right to purchase, but he had to give the original owner either a fourth in land or a fourth in money'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated by Rab, and in contradiction of Samuel. ');">²⁶</span> — R. Ashi replied: That teaching applies, after the money has come into his hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is a fourth of the total sum paid by the purchaser both to the sicaricon and to the owner. ');">²⁷</span> Rab said: