## Bava Batra Daf 28b

###### Bava Batra 28b:1
[Bava Batra 28b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:1)

וְאִידַּךְ, כִּי לָא נְגַח – מַאי לְשַׁלֵּם? הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאַכְלַהּ תְּלָת שְׁנֵי – קָיְימָא לַהּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** the requirement for there to be **another,** fourth, incident for the owner to be liable to pay full damages exists because **before it gores** after having become a forewarned ox, **what** is there for the owner **to pay? Here, once he has** worked and **profited** from the land for **three years,** the land **is established** as being **in his possession.**


###### Bava Batra 28b:2
[Bava Batra 28b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:2)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה תֶּיהְוֵי חֲזָקָה! אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: כׇּל חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה, אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** according to the explanation that the forewarned ox is the source for the presumption of ownership with regard to land, even **possession that is not accompanied by a claim,** i.e., where the possessor has no explanation as to how he acquired it, **should be** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership, just as goring three times automatically establishes its having the status of a forewarned ox. **Why did we learn** in a mishna (41a): **Any possession that is not accompanied by a claim** explaining how the possessor became the owner **is not** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership?


###### Bava Batra 28b:3
[Bava Batra 28b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:3)

טַעְמָא מַאי – דְּאָמְרִינַן: דִּלְמָא כִּדְקָאָמַר, הַשְׁתָּא אִיהוּ לָא טָעֵין, אֲנַן לִיטְעוֹן לֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **What is the reason** that possession that is not accompanied by a claim is not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? **Because** in a standard case where one has presumptive ownership, **we say** that even if the claimant proves that the field was once his, since the other is in possession of the land, **perhaps** the truth is **as he says,** that he purchased it from the previous owner. But **now** that **he** himself **does not claim** that he purchased it, **will we claim** this **for him?**


###### Bava Batra 28b:4
[Bava Batra 28b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב עַוִּירָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לָא תֶּיהְוֵי מֶחָאָה – דּוּמְיָא דְּשׁוֹר מוּעָד; מָה שׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד בְּפָנָיו בָּעֵינַן, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי בְּפָנָיו בָּעֵינַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Avira objects to** the explanation that the presumption with regard to land is derived from the *halakha* of a forewarned ox: **If that is so, a protest that** the claimant lodges during the three years **not in the presence** of the possessor **should not be** considered **a protest,** because it must be **similar** to the *halakha* **of a forewarned ox: Just as we require** that the testimony concerning **a forewarned ox** be **in** its owner’s **presence, so too here, we** should **also require** that a protest be lodged **in the** possessor’s **presence.**


###### Bava Batra 28b:5
[Bava Batra 28b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:5)

הָתָם – ״וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו״ כְּתִיב; הָכָא – חַבְרָךְ חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ, וְחַבְרָא דְּחַבְרָךְ – חַבְרָא אִית לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. **There,** with regard to a forewarned ox, **it is written: “And warning has been given to its owner”** (Exodus 21:29), indicating that the warning must be issued in the presence of the owner. **Here,** with regard to the protest, **your friend has a friend, and the friend of your friend has a friend,** so that the protest will become known even if lodged not in the presence of the possessor, as word of it will spread. There is no Torah edict mandating that the protest be lodged in his presence, and it is sufficient that he hears of it, even secondhand.


###### Bava Batra 28b:6
[Bava Batra 28b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:6)

וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: רִיחֵק נְגִיחוֹתָיו חַיָּיב, קֵירַב נְגִיחוֹתָיו לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן; אַכְלַהּ תְּלָתָא פֵּירֵי בְּחַד יוֹמָא – כְּגוֹן תְּאֵנָה, לֶיהֱוֵי חֲזָקָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **And** according **to Rabbi Meir, who says:** When the ox **performs its gorings at intervals** its owner is **liable,** if it **performs its gorings successively,** is it **not all the more so** the case that its owner is liable? According to his opinion, the animal must gore only three times to become forewarned, and it is not required that the gorings occur on three separate days; they can all occur on the same day. Similarly, one could say that if **he profited** from the field by consuming **three fruits** of, **for example, a fig** tree, **within one day, that should be** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership.


###### Bava Batra 28b:7
[Bava Batra 28b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:7)

דּוּמְיָא דְּשׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד, מָה שׁוֹר הַמּוּעָד בְּעִידָּנָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ הָא נְגִיחָה לֵיתָא לְהָא נְגִיחָה, הָכָא נָמֵי בְּעִידָּנָא דְּאִיתָא לְהַאי פֵּירָא לֵיתָא לְהַאי פֵּירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This would not be a valid comparison, as presumptive ownership with regard to land must be **similar** to the *halakha* **of a forewarned ox: Just as** with **a forewarned ox, at the time when** the animal **has this goring, it does not have that goring,** as each act of goring occurs at a separate time, **here too,** in order for the consumption of the produce to establish the presumption of ownership, it must be that **at the time when this fruit is here, that fruit is not here.** When all the produce of the field is extant concurrently, consumption of this produce does not establish the presumption of ownership, even if the produce is consumed at three different times.


###### Bava Batra 28b:8
[Bava Batra 28b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:8)

אַכְלַהּ תְּלָתָא פֵּרֵי בִּתְלָתָא יוֹמֵי – כְּגוֹן צָלָף, לֶיהֱוֵי חֲזָקָה! הָתָם פֵּירָא מִיהָא אִיתֵיהּ, וּמִגְמָר הוּא דְּקָא גָמַר וְאָזֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Based on this, if **he profited** from the field by consuming **three fruits within three** consecutive **days, for example,** the fruits of **a caper bush,** whose fruits ripen day after day, **that should be** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership, as all three fruits were not ripe concurrently. The Gemara answers: **There,** with regard to the caper bush, **at least the fruit is here and it is in the process of finishing** its ripening during the three days. This is not similar to the goring ox, where each goring is fully independent of the others.


###### Bava Batra 28b:9
[Bava Batra 28b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:9)

אַכְלַהּ תְּלָתָא פֵּירֵי בִּתְלָתִין יוֹמֵי – כְּגוֹן אַסְפַּסְתָּא, לֶיהֱוֵי חֲזָקָה! הֵיכִי דָּמֵי – דְּקָדַיח וְאָכְלָה דְּקָדַיח וְאָכְלָה; הָתָם מִשְׁמָט הוּא דְּקָא שָׁמֵיט וְאָכֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: Based on this, if **he profited** from the field by consuming **three fruits within thirty days, for example, alfalfa [*aspasta*],** which quickly regrows when cut, and which is repeatedly cut over a short period of time, **that should be** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership. The Gemara explains: **What are the circumstances** where it could regrow three times within thirty days? **Where it grows a little** and he cuts **and consumes it, where it grows a little** more **and he consumes it,** such that he cuts it three times within thirty days. **There, he is seizing and consuming** the alfalfa, which is not the normal way of farming it, and consequently he does not establish the presumption of ownership, which is established only through standard use of the land.


###### Bava Batra 28b:10
[Bava Batra 28b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:10)

אַכְלַהּ תְּלָתָא פֵּירֵי בִּתְלָתָא יַרְחֵי – כְּגוֹן אַסְפַּסְתָּא, לֶיהֱוֵי חֲזָקָה! מַאן הוֹלְכֵי אוּשָׁא – רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל; לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָכִי נָמֵי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: Based on this, if **he profited** from the field by consuming **three fruits within three months, for example, alfalfa,** where he did employ the standard method of harvesting it, **that should be** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership. The Gemara explains: **Who are** they **who travel to Usha** whose opinion is under discussion? It is **Rabbi Yishmael. Indeed,** according **to Rabbi Yishmael,** this would establish the presumption of ownership.


###### Bava Batra 28b:11
[Bava Batra 28b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:11)

דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּשְׂדֵה הַלָּבָן, אֲבָל בִּשְׂדֵה אִילָן – כָּנַס אֶת תְּבוּאָתוֹ, וּמָסַק אֶת זֵיתָיו, וְכָנַס אֶת קַיְיצוֹ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as we learned** in the mishna that **Rabbi Yishmael says: In what** case **is this statement,** that eighteen months are required for a non-irrigated field, **said? With regard to a white field,** i.e., a grain field. **But with regard to a field of trees,** once **he gathered his produce, and** then **harvested his olives, and** then **gathered his figs, these** three harvests **are** the equivalent of **three years.** Rabbi Yishmael is of the opinion that three harvests are sufficient.


###### Bava Batra 28b:12
[Bava Batra 28b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:12)

לְרַבָּנַן, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **According to the Rabbis,** who hold that three years, and not three harvests, are required to establish the presumption of ownership, **what** is the source for the concept of this type of presumptive ownership?


###### Bava Batra 28b:13
[Bava Batra 28b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:13)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, קְרָא כְּתִיב: ״שָׂדוֹת בַּכֶּסֶף יִקְנוּ וְכָתוֹב בַּסֵּפֶר וְחָתוֹם״ – שֶׁהֲרֵי נָבִיא עוֹמֵד בְּעֶשֶׂר, וּמַזְהִיר עַל אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said** that **it is written** in the **verse** detailing the purchase of a field from Hanamel by Jeremiah, his cousin, during the time of the siege of Eretz Yisrael: **“Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe the deeds, and seal them”** (Jeremiah 32:44). This describes the writing of a bill of sale to serve as proof of ownership of the field, since he was unable to remain living there for three years to establish the presumption of ownership. **As the prophet** Jeremiah **stood in the tenth** year of King Zedekiah’s reign **and warned** people to write bills of sale **for the eleventh** year, when Eretz Yisrael would be overrun. Consequently, despite the fact that one purchasing a field there would be able to live on the land for two years, this would not be sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, which is why he said that they should have bills of sale written.


###### Bava Batra 28b:14
[Bava Batra 28b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/28b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: דִּלְמָא הָתָם עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: Perhaps there he** merely **teaches us good advice,** that it is advisable to have documents to preclude the need to present witnesses that can attest that one had been living on the land. This is not a proof that the presumption of ownership cannot be established in less than three years.