## Bava Batra Daf 42b

###### Bava Batra 42b:1
[Bava Batra 42b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/42b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל וְלֵוִי תָּנוּ: שׁוּתָּף אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן אוּמָּן. שְׁמוּאֵל תָּנֵי: אוּמָּן אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה, אֲבָל שׁוּתָּף יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה. וְאַזְדָּא שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַשּׁוּתָּפִין מַחְזִיקִין זֶה עַל זֶה, וּמְעִידִין זֶה עַל זֶה, וְנַעֲשִׂים שׁוֹמְרֵי שָׂכָר זֶה לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Shmuel’s father and Levi taught: A partner does not have** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership of property in his possession, **and, all the more so,** this inability applies to **a craftsman** as well. But **Shmuel teaches: A craftsman does not have** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership of property in his possession, **but a partner** does **have** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership. The Gemara comments: **And Shmuel follows his** line of **reasoning, as Shmuel says: Partners establish** the **presumption** of ownership with regard to the property of **each other, and** they **testify for each other and become paid bailees** of their joint property with regard **to each other.** In terms of these issues, Shmuel considers partners to be independent parties.


###### Bava Batra 42b:2
[Bava Batra 42b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/42b:2)

רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב יְהוּדָה בִּמְעָרְתָּא דְּבֵי רַב זַכַּאי, מִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שׁוּתָּף יֵשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שׁוּתָּף כְּיוֹרֵד בִּרְשׁוּת דָּמֵי. לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּשׁוּתָּף אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה? לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דִּנְחֵית לְכוּלַּהּ, הָא דִּנְחֵית לְפַלְגָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba raises a contradiction to Rav Yehuda in the case of Rav Zakkai’s house: Did Shmuel** actually **say** that **a partner has** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership? **But doesn’t Shmuel say: A partner is** considered **as** one who **enters** the field **with permission,** such as a sharecropper? **Isn’t that to say that a partner does not have** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership? The Gemara answers: It is **not difficult. This** is referring to **where** he **enters all of** the field, and **that** is referring to **where** he **enters half** of the field.


###### Bava Batra 42b:3
[Bava Batra 42b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/42b:3)

אָמְרִי לַהּ לְהַאי גִּיסָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְהַאי גִּיסָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Some say it in this manner and some say it in that manner.** On the one hand, it is possible to explain that if he entered half of the field he establishes the presumption of ownership with regard to that half, but if he entered the entire field he is merely acting as a partner. On the other hand, one could explain that entering half of the field does not establish the presumption of ownership at all, while entering the entire field does establish it.


###### Bava Batra 42b:4
[Bava Batra 42b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/42b:4)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: הָא וְהָא דִּנְחֵית לְכוּלַּהּ; וְלָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא דְּאִית בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָהּ, הָא דְּלֵית בָּהּ דִּין חֲלוּקָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina stated** a different resolution to the contradiction: **Both this and that** are referring to a case **where** he **enters the entire** field, **and** it is **not difficult. This** is referring to a case **where** the field **is of** sufficient area to be subject to the ***halakha* of division.** In this case, his being in possession of the other half of the field as well, which belonged to his partner, establishes the presumption of ownership. **That** is referring to a case **where** the field **is not of** sufficient area to be subject to the ***halakha* of division.** Since the property will not be divided but will remain co-owned, he is merely possessing it as a partner and does not establish the presumption of ownership.


###### Bava Batra 42b:5
[Bava Batra 42b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/42b:5)

גּוּפָא – אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שׁוּתָּף – כְּיוֹרֵד בִּרְשׁוּת דָּמֵי. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, שׁוּתָּפוּת אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה? לֵימָא: שׁוּתָּף אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara addresses **the** matter **itself. Shmuel says: A partner is** considered **as** one who **enters** the field **with permission. What is** this **teaching us,** that **there is not** the **presumption** of ownership in the context of **partnership?** If so, **let** him **say** explicitly: **A partner does not have** the ability to establish the **presumption** of ownership of property in his possession.


###### Bava Batra 42b:6
[Bava Batra 42b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/42b:6)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לוֹמַר שֶׁנּוֹטֵל בַּשֶּׁבַח הַמַּגִּיעַ לִכְתֵפַיִם – בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לִיטַּע, כְּשָׂדֶה הָעֲשׂוּיָה לִיטַּע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says:** Shmuel’s intent was **to state that** a partner who proactively works to improve their mutual property **collects** the **enhancement that reaches shoulders,** i.e., when the produce that grew due to the efforts of the partner is fully grown and ripened and can be harvested and carried upon one’s shoulders. He is not considered as one who entered another’s field without permission and improved it, who collects only for his expenditures. This is the *halakha* if he planted trees **in a field that is not commonly used for planting** trees, **just as** it is if he planted **in a field that is commonly used for planting** trees.


###### Bava Batra 42b:7
[Bava Batra 42b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/42b:7)

וּמְעִידִין זֶה לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its discussion of Shmuel’s statement: **And testify for each other.** A partner may join another witness in testifying with regard to the fact that his partner owns a share of their field in order to counter the claim of a one who claims ownership of the field, and his testimony is not disqualified due to being biased.