## Bava Batra Daf 36a

###### Bava Batra 36a:1
[Bava Batra 36a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:1)

״לְדִידִי אֲמַר לִי גּוֹי, דְּמִינָּךְ זַבְנַהּ״ – מְהֵימַן. מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּאִילּוּ גּוֹי אָמַר – לָא מְהֵימַן, וְאִילּוּ אָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּגוֹי – מְהֵימַן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The **gentile told me that** he **purchased** a field **from you,** this claim is **deemed credible.** The Gemara asks: **Is there any case where if a gentile says** it **he is not deemed credible, but if a Jew said** it **in the gentile’s name he would be deemed credible?**


###### Bava Batra 36a:2
[Bava Batra 36a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:2)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, אִי אָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל: ״קַמֵּי דִּידִי זַבְנַהּ גּוֹי מִינָּךְ, וְזַבְּנַהּ נִיהֲלִי״ – מְהֵימַן, מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא זְבֵינְתַּהּ מִינָּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said: If a Jew said** to the prior owner: **A gentile purchased** a field **from you in my presence, and** then he **sold it to me,** this claim is **deemed credible, since if he wanted** to, he could have **said to** the prior owner of the land: **I purchased it from you.**


###### Bava Batra 36a:3
[Bava Batra 36a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:3)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן דְּנָקֵיט מַגָּלָא וְתוּבַלְיָא, וְאָמַר: ״אֵיזִיל אֶיגְזְרֵהּ לְדִקְלָא דִפְלָנְיָא, דִּזְבֵנְתֵּיהּ מִינֵּיהּ״ – מְהֵימַן, לָא חֲצִיף אִינִישׁ לְמִיגְזַר דִּקְלָא דְּלָאו דִּילֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara records a series of *halakhot* pertaining to presumptive ownership. **And Rav Yehuda says: This one who is holding a sickle and rope and says: I will go cull** the dates from **the date tree of so-and-so, from whom I purchased it,** is **deemed credible.** The reason for this is that **a person is not** so **brazen that** he would **cull** the dates from **a date tree that is not his.**


###### Bava Batra 36a:4
[Bava Batra 36a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:4)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן דְּאַחְזֵיק מִגּוּדָא דַעֲרוֹדֵי וּלְבַר, לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? מֵימָר אָמַר: כֹּל דְּזָרַע נָמֵי עֲרוֹדֵי אָכְלִי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yehuda says:** With regard to **this one, who possesses** a field only **from the fence** built to prevent the entry **of the wild donkeys and outward** toward the public property, this conduct **is not** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership. **What is the reason?** The owner **says** to himself: **Everything that** he **sows,** the **wild donkeys** will **eat as well,** and cannot establish the presumption of ownership for him, as he is not profiting from the land as an owner would.


###### Bava Batra 36a:5
[Bava Batra 36a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:5)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אֲכָלָהּ עׇרְלָה – אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אֲכָלָהּ עׇרְלָה, שְׁבִיעִית וְכִלְאַיִם – אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yehuda says:** With regard to one who **profited** from the land by consuming **produce from the first three years after it was planted [*orla*],** during which time one is prohibited from deriving benefit from the produce, this conduct **is not** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership. **This is also taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to one who **profited** from the land by consuming ***orla*** produce, or profited from the land by consuming produce of the **Sabbatical** Year, **or** consumed produce that was prohibited as it was of **diverse kinds,** this conduct **is not** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership.


###### Bava Batra 36a:6
[Bava Batra 36a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:6)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַכְלַהּ שַׁחַת – לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה. אָמַר רָבָא: וְאִי בְּצַוַּאר מָחוֹזָא קָיְימָא – הָוֵי חֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef says:** With regard to one who **profited** from the land by consuming **fodder,** i.e., produce that has grown stalks but is not yet ripe, this conduct **is not** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership. **Rava said: But if** the land was **located in** the **neck of Meḥoza,** a valley where it was common to harvest unripe produce to feed animals, this conduct **is** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership.


###### Bava Batra 36a:7
[Bava Batra 36a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:7)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: תַּפְתִּיחָא – לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה. אַפֵּיק כּוֹרָא וְעַיֵּיל כּוֹרָא – לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says:** Consumption of produce of land that is **fissured is not** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership. This is due to the fact that produce does not grow well there, and therefore, owners do not bother to protest if a trespasser uses the land. Therefore, their silence should not be understood as an admission that it belongs to the possessor. Similarly, consumption of produce of land where one **expends a *kor*** of seed to sow **and retrieves a *kor*** of produce when harvesting it, **is not** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership. Here, too, the owners do not bother to protest, as the land is of inferior quality.


###### Bava Batra 36a:8
[Bava Batra 36a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:8)

וְהָנֵי דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא – לָא מַחְזְקִי בַּן, וְלָא מַחְזְקִינַן בְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman continues: **And these** members **of the household of the Exilarch** do **not establish** the **presumption** of ownership **in our** land, as people are afraid to lodge a protest against them, **and we do not establish** the **presumption** of ownership **in their** land, as, due to their wealth, they might not lodge a protest against one who trespasses on their land.


###### Bava Batra 36a:9
[Bava Batra 36a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:9)

וְהָעֲבָדִים וְכוּ׳. עֲבָדִים יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֲזָקָה?! וְהָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַגּוֹדְרוֹת – אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה! אָמַר רָבָא: אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה לְאַלְתַּר, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהֶן חֲזָקָה לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And** of **slaves,** presumption of ownership of them is established by using them for a duration of three years from day to day. The Gemara asks: With regard to **slaves, is** there **presumptive ownership of them? But doesn’t Reish Lakish say:** With regard to **livestock [*hagoderot*], possession of them does not** establish the presumption of ownership, since they wander from place to place. Therefore, one cannot claim that his mere possession of livestock demonstrates ownership as one can with regard to other movable items, because it may have wandered into his property on its own. The same *halakha* should apply with regard to a slave. **Rava said:** It is true that **possession of them does not** establish the presumption of ownership **immediately, but there is presumptive ownership of them after three years.**


###### Bava Batra 36a:10
[Bava Batra 36a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:10)

אָמַר רָבָא: אִם הָיָה קָטָן מוּטָּל בַּעֲרִיסָה – יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה לְאַלְתַּר. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִית לֵיהּ אִימָּא; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אִימֵּיהּ עַיֵּילְתֵּיהּ לְהָתָם; קָמַשְׁמַע לַן – אִימָּא לָא מְנַשְּׁיָא בְּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: If** the slave in question **was a small** child **placed in a cradle, possession of him does** establish the presumption of ownership **immediately,** as it does with regard to other movable items. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that **obvious,** since he cannot move on his own? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** in a case **where he has a mother. Lest you say:** One **should be concerned** that **perhaps his mother brought him up to there,** and his being on another’s property does not indicate that the latter is his master. Therefore, Rava **teaches us** that there is no concern about this possibility, since **a mother does not forget her son.** Therefore, possession of the infant slave does establish the presumption of ownership.


###### Bava Batra 36a:11
[Bava Batra 36a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:11)

הָנְהוּ עִיזֵּי דַּאֲכַלוּ חוּשְׁלָא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא. אֲתָא מָרֵי חוּשְׁלָא, תַּפְסִינְהוּ, וַהֲוָה קָא טָעֵין טוּבָא. אֲמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: יָכוֹל לִטְעוֹן עַד כְּדֵי דְּמֵיהֶן – דְּאִי בָּעֵי, אָמַר: לְקוּחוֹת הֵן בְּיָדִי. וְהָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַגּוֹדְרוֹת – אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה! שָׁאנֵי עִיזֵּי, דִּמְסִירָה לְרוֹעֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There were **these** certain **goats that ate peeled** barley [***ḥushela***] **in Neharde’a. The owner of** the **peeled** barley **came and seized** the goats, **and was claiming a large** sum of money for the barley from the owner of the goats. **Shmuel’s father said:** He **is able to claim up to** the **value of** the goats, **since if** he **wants** to, he could **say:** The goats **are purchased** and that is why they are **in my possession.** The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t Reish Lakish say:** With regard to **livestock,** possession of them **does not** establish the **presumption** of ownership? The Gemara answers: **Goats are different, as** they are **given to shepherds,** and do not wander on their own.


###### Bava Batra 36a:12
[Bava Batra 36a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:12)

וְהָא אִיכָּא צַפְרָא וּפַנְיָא! בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא טַיָּיעִי שְׁכִיחִי, וּמִיְּדָא לִידָא מְשַׁלְּמִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But there is morning and evening** to consider, when the goats are unsupervised when traveling between the owner and the shepherd, and during those times this *halakha* of livestock should apply with regard to them. The Gemara explains: The case under discussion took place in Neharde’a, and **Arabs [*tayya’ei*]** who steal animals **are common in Neharde’a, and** goats there are **delivered from hand to hand** and are never left unsupervised.


###### Bava Batra 36a:13
[Bava Batra 36a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:13)

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְכוּ׳. לֵימָא נִיר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: נִיר לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: נִיר הָוֵי חֲזָקָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yishmael says: Three months** of possession in the first year, three months of possession in the third year, and twelve months of possession in the middle, which are eighteen months, suffices to establish the presumption of ownership. Rabbi Akiva disagrees, and says that one month in the first and third year, in addition to the full middle year, is sufficient. The Gemara asks: **Shall we say** that the difference **between them is** whether **plowing** the land is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? **As Rabbi Yishmael holds** that **plowing is not** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership, and three months are needed for the crop to grow, **and Rabbi Akiva holds** that **plowing is** sufficient to establish the **presumption** of ownership, and therefore one month is sufficient.


###### Bava Batra 36a:14
[Bava Batra 36a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/36a:14)

וְתִסְבְּרָא?! לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – מַאי אִירְיָא חוֹדֶשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how can **you understand** their opinions this way? If so, **according to Rabbi Akiva, why specifically** require a full **month?**