## Bava Batra Daf 38a

###### Bava Batra 38a:1
[Bava Batra 38a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38a:1)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא, וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: כּוּרְכְּמָא דְרִישְׁקָא זַבֵּינִי לָךְ, עֲקוֹר כּוּרְכְּמָא דְרִישְׁקָא, וְזִיל! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בְּבָא מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava objects to this** ruling that the buyer of the tree acquires the land beneath it: **And let** the seller **say to him: I sold you** only **the saffron crocus,** a small plant normally uprooted by the buyer and taken with him. Therefore, **uproot the saffron crocus and go. Rather, Rava said:** This ruling is stated **with regard to** one who **comes** to court **with** a specific **claim** that the seller had stipulated that he would acquire the land. Without this specific claim he does not acquire the land beneath the tree.


###### Bava Batra 38a:2
[Bava Batra 38a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְאִי כּוּרְכְּמָא דְרִישְׁקָא זַבֵּין לֵיהּ, מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Kashisha, the son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: And if,** in fact, the seller **sold him the saffron crocus, what was** there **for** the seller **to do** to prevent the buyer from claiming the land beneath the tree, as the buyer could claim that there had been an explicit stipulation that he receive it? Rav Ashi answered: **He should have protested** during the first three years and publicized that the land was not included in the sale.


###### Bava Batra 38a:3
[Bava Batra 38a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38a:3)

דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָנֵי מַשְׁכְּנָתָא דְסוּרָא – דִּכְתִב בְּהִי הָכִי: ״בְּמִישְׁלַם שְׁנַיָּא אִלֵּין, תִּיפּוֹק אַרְעָא דָּא בְּלָא כְּסַף״; אִי כָּבֵישׁ לֵיהּ לִשְׁטַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא, וְאָמַר: ״לְקוּחָה הִיא בְּיָדִי״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְהֵימַן?! מְיתַקְּנִי רַבָּנַן מִילְּתָא דְּאָתֵי בַּהּ לִידֵי פְסֵידָא? אֶלָּא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמַחוֹיֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The assumption that lodging a protest would be effective must be correct, **since if you do not say so,** then in the case of **these mortgages** according to the custom **in Sura,** a city in Babylonia, the debtor will not have a way to prevent the creditor from keeping his land. **As in** mortgages of that type it is **written like this: At the completion of these years this land will be released** to its prior owner **without** any need for the prior owner to give **money. If** the creditor were to **hide** the **mortgage document in his possession and say:** This land **is purchased** and that is why it is **in my possession, here** is it **also** the case **that** he would be **deemed credible?** That cannot be, as is it reasonable that **the Sages would institute a matter,** such as this type of arrangement, **that** people **can be led by it to** suffer **a loss? Rather,** in the case of the mortgage the debtor **should have protested,** and by not protesting, he causes his own loss. **Here too,** in the case of the tree, the owner **should have protested.**


###### Bava Batra 38a:4
[Bava Batra 38a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחֲזָקָה – יְהוּדָה, וְעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, וְהַגָּלִיל. הָיָה בִּיהוּדָה וְהֶחֱזִיק בַּגָּלִיל, בַּגָּלִיל וְהֶחֱזִיק בִּיהוּדָה – אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עִמּוֹ בִּמְדִינָה אַחַת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא אָמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּאַסְפַּמְיָא – וְיַחְזִיק שָׁנָה, יֵלְכוּ וְיוֹדִיעוּהוּ שָׁנָה, וְיָבֹא לְשָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** There are **three** independent **lands** in Eretz Yisrael **with regard to** establishing **presumptive ownership: Judea, and Transjordan, and the Galilee.** If the prior owner of the field **was in Judea and** another **took possession** of his field **in the Galilee,** or if he was **in the Galilee and** another **took possession** of his field **in Judea,** the possessor does **not** establish **presumptive ownership until** the one possessing the field **will be with** the prior owner **in one province. Rabbi Yehuda says:** The Sages **said** that establishing presumptive ownership requires **three years only in order that** if the owner **will be in Spain [*Aspamya*], and** another **possesses** his field for **a year,** people **will go and inform** the owner by the end of the next **year, and** the owner will **come** back **in** the **following year** and take the possessor to court.


###### Bava Batra 38a:5
[Bava Batra 38a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי קָסָבַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא? אִי קָסָבַר מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, אֲפִילּוּ יְהוּדָה וְגָלִיל נָמֵי! אִי קָסָבַר מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לָא הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, אֲפִילּוּ יְהוּדָה וִיהוּדָה נָמֵי לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **What does the first *tanna* hold** in ruling that the prior owner and the field need be in the same province in order for the possessor to establish presumptive ownership? **If he holds** that **a protest that is** lodged **not in the presence of** the one possessing the field **is** a valid **protest, even** in the case where one is in **Judea and** one is in the **Galilee,** the protest should be valid **as well. If he holds** that **a protest** lodged **not in his presence is not** a valid **protest, even** in the case where one is in **Judea and** the other one is in **Judea,** the protest should **not** be valid **as well.**


###### Bava Batra 38a:6
[Bava Batra 38a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל אָמַר רַב, לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר: מֶחָאָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו הָוְיָא מֶחָאָה, וּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ – בִּשְׁעַת חֵירוּם שָׁנוּ. וּמַאי שְׁנָא יְהוּדָה וְגָלִיל דְּנָקֵיט?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba bar Memel says** that **Rav says: Actually,** the *tanna* **holds** that **a protest** lodged **not in his presence is** a valid **protest, and** the Sages **taught our mishna with regard to a period of crisis,** when travel is perilous and information cannot be transmitted between Judea and the Galilee. Therefore, although no word of a protest was received, the possessor does not establish presumptive ownership of the field. The Gemara asks: **But** if it is due only to the exigent circumstances that word of the protest does not reach the one possessing the field, **what is different** about **Judea and** the **Galilee that** the *tanna* **cited?** Ostensibly, even within one of the three lands, if travel and communications are restricted the same *halakha* would apply.


###### Bava Batra 38a:7
[Bava Batra 38a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/38a:7)

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *tanna*, by citing specifically a case where each is located in a different land, **teaches us this:**